key elements contributing to effective and … · 2014. 11. 18. · the development of this project...

By Liza Fallon and Lorne K. Kriwoken

RESEARCH REPORT

KEY ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO EFFECTIVE ANDSUSTAINABLE VISITOR CENTRES:AN EVALUATION OF THE STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE, TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA

RESEARCH REPORT SERIES

The primary aim of CRC Tourism’s research report series is technology transfer. The

reports are targeted toward both industry and government users and tourism

researchers. The content of this technical report series primarily focuses on applications,

but may also advance research methodology and tourism theory. The report series titles

relate to CRC Tourism’s research program areas. All research reports are peer reviewed

by at least two external reviewers. For further information on the report series, access

the CRC website [www.crctourism.com.au].

EDITORSProf Chris Cooper University of Queensland Editor-in-ChiefProf Terry De Lacy CRC for Sustainable Tourism Chief ExecutiveProf Leo Jago CRC for Sustainable Tourism Director of Research

National Library of Australia Cataloguing in Publication Data

Fallon, Liza.Key elements contributing to effective and sustainable visitor centres : an evaluationof the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania, Australia.

Bibliography.ISBN 1 876685 88 3.

1. Visitors’ centers - Tasmania - Evaluation. 2. Tourist information centers - Tasmania -Evaluation. 3. Visitors’ centers - Tasmania - Management. 4. Tourist informationcenters - Tasmania - Management. 5. Tourism - Tasmania Management. I. Kriwoken,Lorne K. (Lorne Keith). II. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism.

338.4791946

© 2002 Copyright CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty LtdAll rights reserved. No parts of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem or transmitted in any form or by means of electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.Any enquiries should be directed to Brad Cox, Director of Communications or TrishO’Connor, Publications Manager to [email protected].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The development of this project has relied on the inspiration, input,support and assistance from many institutions and people. Firstly, wewould like to thank the Australian Cooperative Research Centresprogram through the CRC for Sustainable Tourism for their support interms of offering a tourism honours scholarship. We would also liketo extend our sincere thanks to the numerous people who assistedand supported this project. In particular, we thank Dr Elaine Stratfordfrom the University of Tasmania for her generous assistance, SueRundle from the Parks and Wildlife Service for her help withmethodology, and Robert Morris-Nunn for his unquestioning supportand provision of literature and architectural drawings. In addition,thanks to Dr Jim Russell, Dr Simon Wotherspoon and Mark Bennettfrom the University of Tasmania; Sue Haimes, Andrew Roberts andBob Tyson from the Parks and Wildlife Service; Stewart Lennox, JaneFoley and Inga Brkic from Tourism Tasmania; and Enterprise Marketingstaff. Most importantly, we would like to express our deepestgratitude to the key informants. Their input, ideas, opinions andenthusiasm were essential to the success of this project. We hope theresearch has reflected their opinions accurately and that collectively,their ideas will help to develop visitor centre excellence. The list is toolong to reproduce here but your names appear in the personalcommunications list. In addition, we thank all those who participatedin the Strahan Visitor Centre visitor survey and although these peopleremain unnamed – your time and comments were invaluable.

Visitor centres provide information and services and they orientate,entertain and educate tourists. Tourism is important to Tasmania’seconomic and social well-being and as a result, the State haspositioned itself as a nature-based tourist destination. This directionhas necessitated the building of additional visitor centres thatcontribute to the needs of tourists, the tourism industry, governmentsand the community. Consequently, many new Tasmanian visitorcentres are being constructed. Given the resources required to buildand maintain these centres, it is important to evaluate Tasmania’sexisting facilities to determine their overall effectiveness.

This report presents a case study evaluation of visitors to the StrahanVisitor Centre, Tasmania, Australia. The aim of this study is todetermine the effectiveness of the Strahan Visitor Centre. To helpanswer this question, one of the primary objectives of the study wasto determine who uses the centre, how visitors use the centre, whatvisitors think of the centre and what impacts the centre has on users.The fieldwork was conducted over a one-week period in January2001 and it comprised two main components: visitor observationsand a face-to-face structured visitor questionnaire survey. The secondphase of the fieldwork involved the collection of qualitative data inthe form of semi-structured key informant interviews. Theseinterviews highlighted any broader issues contributing to the successor failure of the Strahan Visitor Centre, and they are used as afoundation on which to overlay the case study results and a discussionof this study’s second primary objective regarding key visitor centreplanning and design issues.

Elements that Contribute to Effective and Sustainable VisitorCentres

Success criteria contributing to effective visitor centres are complexand there is no prescriptive formula by which to plan or constructthem. Although they need to be planned for on a case by case basis,these facilities also need to be part of a comprehensive, collaborative,cross-agency strategy to ensure they are built within a regional vision,brand and position. Before building a centre, it is essential for

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

planners to establish a clear need for the facility and ascertain if Stategovernment agencies, tourism operators and local communities arecommitted to being actively involved in the centre’s on-goingoperations. As a result, it is important that government agencies,planners and designers value community, social and cultural capitaland include all stakeholders in the planning and design process. Inaddition, location and the physical environment are important factors,and facilities should be designed for distinctiveness and built wherethe visitors and attractions are found. If visitor centres are to besustainable, it is also important that planners and designersunderstand the audiences using or providing referral to a facility;provide multiple functions and innovative activities; and recogniseeconomic realities. This overall framework helps to ensure that visitorcentres meet the needs of governments, visitors, the tourism industry,local communities and cultural groups.

This study found a number of valid conclusions appropriate to thesingle case. It also identified a number of key elements that maycontribute to effective and sustainable visitor centres generally. Thesections in this report detailing these key elements and visitor centreevaluation techniques of most interest to industry include Section 2:Methodology, Section 3: Designing Effective Visitor Centres, Sub-Section 4.2.6: Importance of Visitor Centres to the HolidayExperience, Section 5: Case Study Evaluation and Section 6:Conclusions. This study found that effective and sustainable visitorcentres generally include the following elements:

• Identifying the need and function of, any new centre beforethey are constructed.

• Understand the audience(s) to ensure that visitor centres meetvisitor, management and community needs.

• Clearly identify resources and whether the visitor centre is to beself-, partly-, or fully funded?

• Foster effective partnerships to provide support and referral.

• Consider ongoing operational and maintenance costs andthose who will provide the resources.

ii

• Value social, community and cultural capital becausecommunities provide ongoing support.

• Provide personal experiences because visitors seek experiencesthat are real, intimate and friendly.

• Develop multiple functions to provide a diverse revenue base.

• Promote and market the facility to ensure that visitors areaware of the visitor centre.

• Choose the location carefully and build the visitor centreswhere the attraction and visitors are found.

• Visible and accessible entrances are essential because theyprovide a sense of welcome and orientate visitors to a site or activity.

• Provide distinct and innovative designs to inspire the visitors.

• Create distinct and authentic experiences that are of the placeor relate to the place.

• Present important messages at the beginning of theexperience to ensure that visitors absorb new information whilethey are inspired and receptive.

• Interstitial experiences are important because they drawvisitors from the environment into the facility and from the facilityback into the environment.

• Be innovative because visitors seek new, distinct and interestingexperiences.

• Design a facility that evolves over time to keep the visitorcentre current, fresh and innovative.

Elements that Contribute to Interpretive Excellence

Visitor centres often provide interpretation and this study identifiedthat telling a good story is an essential interpretive success factor.

iii

Interpretation also needs to be provided in different ways and offeralternative experiences to ensure it appeals to as wide an audience aspossible. In addition, interpretation and other interactive experiencescan foster social capital and provide an opportunity for respecting thediversity of a community’s values. This study found that interpretiveexperiences need to be:

• Authentic, credible, clear and related to the essence of that place.

• Entertaining, fun and enriching.

• Personal, because visitors remember experiences that appealdirectly to them.

• Learning experiences, where messages are clear and related tothe type of place you wish to present to others.

• Community focused, as interpretation will always be strongerwith local involvement.

iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................IX

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................1

1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................21.1 Overview........................................................................21.2 The Strahan Visitor Centre .............................................21.3 Significance of the Study................................................7

2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................92.1 Study Aims and Objectives .............................................92.2 Research Approach.........................................................9

2.2.1 Formal Summative Evaluation...........................102.2.2 Choice of Case Study .......................................112.2.3 Multi-Method Approach...................................11

2.3 Data Collection ............................................................142.3.1 Structured Visitor Questionnaire Survey .............142.3.2 Survey Instrumentation......................................152.3.3 Visitor Survey Validity ........................................162.3.4 Response Rate ...................................................172.3.5 Visitor Observations...........................................172.3.6 Semi-structured Interviews with Key Informants 18

2.4 Data Analysis................................................................202.5 Limitations of the Study ...............................................21

3 DESIGNING EFFECTIVE VISITOR CENTRES .........................233.1 The Growth of Tourism in Australia ..............................233.2 Understanding the Audience ........................................243.3 The Role of Visitor Centres ...........................................25

3.3.1 Diversity and Function ......................................253.3.2 Designing a Complete Strategy ........................283.3.3 The Tasmanian Experience................................30

3.4 Designing for Distinctiveness ........................................323.4.1 Planning and Design.........................................323.4.2 Location ...........................................................35

3.5 Planning Effective Interpretation...................................363.5.1 Managing Tourism in Sensitive Areas................36

v

CONTENTS

3.5.2 What is Interpretation?.....................................373.5.3 Social Change ..................................................383.5.4 Community and Social Capital ..........................393.5.5 Cultural Issues ..................................................41

3.6 Interpretation as a Planning Strategy ............................433.7 Integrating Visitor Centre Design with Interpretive

Planning.......................................................................473.8 Interpretation and Learning ..........................................50

3.8.1 Informal Learning Environments ........................523.8.2 Constructivist Visitor Centres .............................523.8.3 Mindful Visitors .................................................533.8.4 Visitor Centre Fatigue ........................................56

3.9 Designing Effective Interpretation.................................573.9.1 Providing Variety................................................573.9.2 Attracting and Holding Power ...........................583.9.3 Telling a Good and Story ...................................593.9.4 Exhibits..............................................................61

3.10 Integrating Interpretive Design with Evaluation.............63

4 STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE RESULTS.................................664.1 Visitor Observations......................................................664.2 Structured Visitor Questionnaire Survey ........................71

4.2.1 Visitor Profile .....................................................714.2.2 Level of Usage...................................................754.2.3 Visitor Information Sources................................774.2.4 Visitor Evaluation of the Strahan Visitor

Centre ...............................................................794.2.5 The Interpretive Display .....................................824.2.6 Importance of Visitor Centres to the

Holiday Experience ............................................88

5 CASE STUDY EVALUATION .................................................935.1 Themes Emerging from the Study ................................935.2 Strahan as an Eco-tourist Destination ...........................955.3 Visitor Centre Success Criteria ......................................965.4 The Political Arena........................................................985.5 Value Community, Cultural and Social Capital ..............995.6 Authentic Experiences ................................................1025.7 Interpreting Aboriginal Culture...................................1035.8 Interpretation - Valuable Lessons ................................105

vi

6 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................1076.1 Elements Contributing to Visitor Centre Excellence ....1076.2 Elements Contributing to Interpretive Excellence ........1096.3 New Directions for the Strahan Visitor Centre ............1106.4 Reflections..................................................................112

REFERENCES.............................................................................115

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................129

APPENDICESA: STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE SURVEY .................................130B: STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE OBSERVATIONS CHECKLIST ..139C: CROSS TABULATION VISITOR SURVEY RESULTS ...............141

AUTHORS .................................................................................146

LIST OF FIGURES1.1 Tasmania identifying the location of Strahan and the

Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.............................5 3.1 The basic elements of many visitor centres ............................26 3.2 Regional planning of visitor centres .......................................29 3.3 Major issues pertaining to the interpretive planning process ..463.4 Mindfulness model for communicating with visitors ..............55 4.1 Length of stay in Strahan of visitors to the Strahan Visitor

Centre ...................................................................................74 4.2 Visitation to the Strahan Visitor Centre..................................75 4.3 Reasons for visitors not paying to see the interpretive

display...................................................................................764.4 Time visitors spend at the Strahan Visitor Centre...................77 4.5 Overall visitor satisfaction with the Strahan Visitor Centre

and their rating of the design of the building, friendliness of the staff and provision of local area information....................81

4.6 Strahan Visitor Centre visitor flow paths ...............................82 4.7 The interpretive sub-themes visitors enjoyed, read and learned

the most about .....................................................................85 4.8 What visitors look for in a visitor centre.................................88

vii

LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Planning and design elements of visitor centres.....................33 3.2 Characteristics of informal and formal learning

environments.........................................................................503.3 Incorporating learning modality into interpretive design ........51 3.5 Principles of visitor behaviour ................................................62 4.1 Observed visitors in the interpretive display ...........................71 4.2 Sociodemographic profiles and travel origin of the

total sample ..........................................................................72 4.3 Local and regional travel of visitors to the Strahan Visitor

Centre ...................................................................................73 4.4 Reasons for visiting and visitor expectations regarding tourist

information ...........................................................................78 4.5 Best and worst aspects of the Strahan Visitor Centre.............80 4.6 Popularity of words and phases used to describe the

display...................................................................................83 4.7 Level of interest and satisfaction in the interactive exhibits ....874.8 Other Tasmanian visitor centres accessed by visitors...............89 4.9 A summary of visitor responses regarding other visitor

centres ..................................................................................90 5.1 Themes emerging from the visitor survey and key informant

data ......................................................................................93

LIST OF PLATES4.1 Obscured entry into the Strahan Visitor Centre......................67 4.2 Small, dark information foyer ................................................68 4.3 Interstitial area outside the Strahan Visitor Centre ................68 4.4 The amphitheatre ..................................................................69 4.5 Text panels and rainforest vegetation.....................................70

viii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council(ANZECC)

Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM)

Department of Environment, Water and Environment (DPIWE)

Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage (DPWH) – now theTasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service

Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation (DoTSR) – now TourismTasmania

Ecologically sustainable development (ESD)

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources (IUCN)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Strahan Visitor Centre (SVC)

Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council (TALC)

Tasmanian Forestry Commission (TFC) – now Forestry Tasmania

Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (TPWS)

The Round Earth Company (TREC)

Tasmanian Visitor Information Network (TVIN)

Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA)

Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment (VDNRE)

Visitor Centre (VC)

World Heritage Area (WHA)

ix

1

This report presents a case study evaluation of the Strahan VisitorCentre, Tasmania, Australia. On-site visitors were surveyed using astructured questionnaire to determine who used the Centre andrespondent’s views regarding the facility. In addition, eight keyinformants with direct experience in Tasmania’s tourism industry, orthe design, management and operation of visitor centres, wereinterviewed to elicit their opinions on the Centre and the associatedinterpretation. The case study results, together with the qualitative,semi-structured key informant interviews, are used to discuss themain elements supporting effective and sustainable visitor centres.This report identifies that the Strahan Visitor Centre is popular withvisitors. However, the study acknowledges that the Centre has alsobeen controversial and it has attracted criticism from otherstakeholder groups. As a result, it is important to also consider theneeds of management, operators, and local communities and culturalcommunities. Recommendations include incorporating visitor centreswithin a comprehensive regional strategy, designing innovative anddistinctive facilities, choosing the location carefully, providing multiplefunctions, adopting a consultative approach and including allstakeholders in the planning and design process.

ABSTRACT

1.1 Overview

Visitor Centres (VCs) are facilities that provide information andservices to tourists and they have management, industry, orientationor interpretive functions (Moscardo 1999; Wylde 1996). Thesefacilities are a new element in Australia’s landscape that have beencreated by tourism, and in the last twenty years they have gainedfavour with governments, government agencies, industry, tourists andlocal communities despite their expense in terms of capital andrecurrent costs (Pearce 1991). Their place within the tourism industryhas arisen due to a complex relationship between the messages,services and outcomes that governments, operators and localcommunities want (or are able) to deliver and the needs of thosesame communities and tourists.

Along with site based interpretation, Australian VCs can provideenriching visitor experiences and together, they constitute apotentially important intervention strategy in support of conservationobjectives including visitor management and reduced pressure onsensitive areas. Whether it is called informing, educating or increasingunderstanding, the dominant aim of most VCs is to provideknowledge to visitors (Lee 1998). As such, many VCs house andcomplement interpretation and these facilities are one tool of aninterpretative program. However, the planning of VCs in Australia isoften ad hoc and many agencies or industry representatives have yetto establish clear policies, objectives and design criteria.

The rise of tourism has led to calls from both tourists and managersfor an increase in services and facilities that are educational, authenticand sensitive to the environment. Interpretive VCs can help meetthese demands and as a result, the building of VCs is likely tocontinue. Thus, if VCs are to be a cornerstone of environmentallyfriendly tourism and visitor management strategies, it is importantthat they are seen to be sustainable. However, the elementscontributing to authentic and sustainable VCs vary depending onwhose perspective is considered. In addition, Australianinterpretation has yet to be aligned with wider environmental

2

1. INTRODUCTION

education activities or corporate and business objectives, and it isquestioned if these VCs either target interpretation effectively or areviable in the longer-term (Victorian Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment [VDNRE] 1999:v). Consequently, VCs should beplanned systematically to ensure they are incorporated intocomprehensive strategies that include clear and practical objectives,processes, guidelines and evaluation.

Interpretation is about communication and education. In VCsinterpretation has the power to enrich visitor understanding andappreciation of the world around them, and their roles within it (Evans2000; Moscardo 1999; Absher 1997; Cheatley 1994). However, thisstudy recognises that the process of planning interpretation inarchitecturally designed VCs is not enough. Along with the facilityitself, VC interpretation also requires careful design and evaluationthroughout the development, installation and delivery stages, toensure that it communicates programs and activities successfully, andcaptures the visitor’s imagination (Beckmann 1999; Ballantyne andUzzell 1999; Hall and McArthur 1998).

Evaluation is guided by the desire to understand and make informedjudgments, choices and improvements. Given the resources needed tobuild interpretive VCs, like any other interpretive program they shouldundergo evaluation if they are to be accountable and successful.Therefore, systematic VC evaluation is vital, as it helps to assess afacility’s performance and ideally, assessment should be undertakenfrom the beginning of the design program. Hall and McArthur(1998:192) define evaluation as ‘a systematic, objective assessment ofthe effectiveness, efficiency and/or appropriateness of a program orpart of a program’. Ham (1986:9) agrees, and adds that interpretiveevaluation collects and analyses information about its audience, or itsimpact on an audience ‘for the explicit purpose of improving its abilityto serve the audience in intended ways’. He argues that evaluation isa necessary step towards unifying interpretation with othergovernment agency functions including its mission statement andoverall intent. Ham draws upon the work of Coke and Hansen (1974)and suggests that the entire evaluation process is meaningless outsideits role in the political decision-making process, as the results willeither support or refute the views of stakeholders or generate criticismof the interpretation or outcomes. Thus, according to Howard (1997),

3

VC evaluation provides information on a facility, its management andoperation, visitors, and their appraisal of a given site, environment ordisplay. In particular, VC evaluation provides information to agenciesso they can make decisions on upgrading, updating, deleting, andadding components to ensure that information, services andinterpretation are delivered effectively and economically. In addition,meaningful outcomes of the evaluation process can be incorporatedinto the design of new centres.

1.2 The Strahan Visitor Centre

Strahan is located 287 km north west of Hobart on Tasmania’s WestCoast (Figure 1.1). This forestry, fishing and tourism town is located10 km from the entrance to Macquarie Harbour. The harbourdominates the township, and it provides access to the TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). The Strahan area hasmany natural and cultural attractions, close proximity to the TWWHA,and outstanding beauty including the unique contrast of seascape,mountains, temperate rainforest and rivers. World Heritage listing ofthe TWWHA was proclaimed in 1982 and expanded in 1989. Thesubsequent blockading of the Franklin River by environmentalists in1982/83 attained international prominence and it is an integral partof the region’s history. Strahan also has a rich human history and thetownship has an attractive waterfront and an important historicalprecinct. In addition, the historic Abt Wilderness Railway has recentlyopened, and the area has a number of ghost towns, mining andrailway relics, and a rich convict history. These elements provide a richbase for the area’s ecotourism and cultural industry.

The tourism study conducted by Evers Consulting Services Pty Ltd(1984) was one of the first to recommend that Strahan develop amajor interpretive centre and heritage theatre. Cutler and Associates(1989 in Saunders 1990) agreed, and suggested that Strahandramatise or interpret Tasmania’s West Coast in terms of its history,people or the wilderness. Saunders (1990) built on these reports andin the Tasmanian WHA Interpretation Strategy he pointed out that thesmall existing Customs House VC provided an opportunity to promotethe TWWHA to visitors. This building served as the Department ofParks, Wildlife and Heritage (DPWH) Strahan headquarters. However,as it was located away from the wharf area, the interpretation display

4

attracted less than 600 visitors/year (Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd1990). During the same year Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd (1990)produced a Tourism Development and Marketing Strategy forStrahan, which recommended that interpretation be extended and re-located to a central position to attract more visitors. At the same time,the Tasmanian Forestry Commission (TFC) proposed a forest VC toprovide information based on wilderness, fishing, forestry and miningthemes. Given Strahan’s need for information and interpretation,Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd recommended that one new integratedcentre be constructed.

The Strahan Visitor Centre (SVC) was built with Federal WHA and TFCfunds in November 1992 at a cost of one million dollars (Morris-Nunnand Flanagan 1994). This interpretive VC was commissioned by theTasmanian government and the winning submission conceived byKevin Perkins and Morris-Nunn Associates won a nation-widecompetition to complete both the building of the Centre and thecreation of its interpretation. The SVC was completed in elevenmonths after some consultation and involvement with the West Coastcommunities. Since this time, the Centre’s overall concept, its design,interpretive text and images have been subject to considerablecontroversy from the Tasmanian government, tourism industryrepresentatives and West Coast communities (The Advocate 1997;Morris-Nunn and Flanagan 1994; Spence 1993; TasmanianParliamentary Office 1992).

Figure 1.1 Tasmania identifying the location of Strahan andthe Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

5

Flanagan (1996:181) describes the SVC as ‘the world’s first magicalrealist building’. According to Morris-Nunn and Flanagan (1994:3) theterm ‘magical realism’ was first used to describe ‘a school of SouthAmerican writing that presented what was magic and special about areality often wrongly dismissed as prosaic and ordinary’. As such, theSVC sought to recreate aspects of Tasmania’s southwest wilderness ina new context and in a way that would shock visitors into recognisingwhat was magic and special about the West Coast’s remote,environmentally sensitive and cultural areas. In addition, Faggetter(1996:19) states the Centre helped a ‘deeply divided community tellits many different stories’. The SVC was built around the overarchingtheme of human interaction with the TWWHA with particularemphasis on Strahan from 50,000 years ago to the present time(Flanagan 1996). In addition, the Centre claims to ‘provide anexperience for visitors that was not totally visual’; ‘invest visitors witha sense of curiosity and wonder’ for the area; and ‘have visitors gobeyond their preconceptions toward exploring’ the TWWHA (Perkinset al. 1992:5-6). For those seeing the interpretive display (the display);it provides a substitute wilderness experience.

Today, a board of management including the Tasmanian Parks andWildlife Service (TPWS), Forestry Tasmania and key stakeholderscontrols the SVC and it is operated under a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) with The Round Earth Company (TREC). Eventhis process has not been without difficulty, and the Centre wasinitially managed in a partnership among three governmentdepartments (DPWH, TFC and the Department of Tourism, Sport andRecreation [DoTSR]) and operated by the Strahan Visitor Centre Inc.At the time, it was intended that the local community should have asense of involvement and ownership in the Centre, and that it was tobecome self-funding after four years. During 1996, West CoastTourism Inc. formed, took over the Centre’s operation and re-namedit as the Strahan Wharf Centre. However, due to budgetary concernsthey abandoned the building in 1997, when it closed for renovations.It reopened under the current agreement as the SVC in late 1997.From this time, the SVC’s three main business streams have beenvisitor information, interpretation and merchandising. The Centre isalso a member of the Tasmanian Visitor Information Network (TVIN)and it currently attracts approximately 82,000 visitors/year with up to10,000 of these people paying to see an interpretive display (TREC

6

2000). Considering that 137,600 people visited Strahan for the yearending 2000 (Brkic 2001), this represents a conversion rate ofapproximately 60% to the SVC. However, both the Government andtourism industry question whether the Strahan or West Coastcommunities support the Centre, or if the current display entry fee of$AUD3.30 provides an adequate revenue base for this facility toremain viable in a cost recovery setting.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The TWWHA covers over 1.38 million hectares and occupies 21% ofthe State (TPWS 2000). This area is one of only twenty-three in theworld that has both natural and cultural attributes and it ischaracterised by outstanding beauty. Given this area’s uniquequalities, the TWWHA has become an icon attraction withapproximately 221,000 tourists visiting each year (Tourism Tasmania1999a).

The rise in Tasmanian tourism has resulted in tourists and managersrequesting additional visitor infrastructure that is sensitive to theenvironment, educational and authentic. As a result, many newinterpretive VCs have been constructed in Tasmania to meet theseneeds. These facilities provide information and services and theyorientate, entertain and educate tourists. In particular, they house andcompliment interpretation and they aim to enrich visitorunderstanding and foster positive visitor values and behaviour(Moscardo 1999; Stewart et al. 1998). However, in addition tomeeting visitor needs, interpretive VCs should also foster culturalexchange and social equity where local and cultural communities areempowered and participate in the tourism delivery experience(Scheyvens 1999).

Tasmania currently has three key interpretive TWWHA VCs located atStrahan, Cradle Mountain and Lake St Clair. Two new centres havealso recently opened at Mt Field and Hastings Caves and others arebeing constructed. These centres occupy a strategic position inTasmania’s tourism industry and they can be the first and only contactthat State government agencies have with users of the TWWHA orother environmentally sensitive areas. Despite the proliferation ofTasmanian VCs and the cost of building and maintaining these

7

facilities, it is not known how effective any of these centres are interms of their sustainability, main informative functions or if they meetvisitor and community needs. As a result, it is important to evaluateTasmania’s existing facilities to ensure they provide the bestexperience possible and assess if they are culturally, environmentallyand economically sustainable.

8

2.1 Study Aims and Objectives

This research was designed to fulfil two aims:

(a) to investigate key issues relevant to planning, designing andevaluating effective and sustainable VCs; and

(b) to analyse visitors to the SVC to determine: (i) who uses the Centre(ii) how visitors use the Centre (iii) what visitors think of the Centre(iv) and what impacts the Centre has on users.

The following objectives were developed to facilitate the achievementof the study aims:

(a) to examine via a literature review VC planning, design andevaluation criteria in order to review current practises;

(b) to select a visitor survey technique, develop a survey instrumentand conduct an on-site structured questionnaire visitor survey atthe SVC to assess visitor socio-demographics, and visitormotivations, attitudes, perceptions and opinions;

(c) to select a visitor observation technique and develop anobservation checklist to assess visitor actions at the SVC;

(d) to conduct semi-structured key informant interviews to gain abroad understanding of relevant issues pertaining to VCs;

(e) to present quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data; and

(f) to apply the results and assess any broader implications within thecontext of sustainable VC planning, design and operation.

2.2 Research Approach

Research was conducted over a one year period with the fieldcomponent taking place between December 2000 and February

9

2. METHODOLOGY

2001. Two main phases of fieldwork were undertaken. The first phaseevaluated the effectiveness of the SVC over a one-week period inJanuary 2001. The second phase involved the collection of qualitativedata in the form of semi-structured key informant interviews fromJanuary to February 2001. Extensive research was mainly quantitative,primarily explanatory and mainly concerned with discovering generalpatterns and distinguishing features of the SVC’s visiting population.Intensive qualitative research provided context to the extensiveresearch and focused on descriptive understanding and how somecausal processes worked out in a particular case (Massey and Meegan1985:150).

2.2.1 Formal summative evaluation

Evaluation techniques can be categorised into three evaluation types.As such, front-end (or systematic and planned evaluation) isconducted during the development of a VC or interpretive programand it is about assessing who are the potential visitors (Moscardo1998; 1999; Serrell 1996). This type of assessment is becomingnecessary when seeking approval and funding for projects. Formativeevaluation is a systematic and planned process that is conducted oncethe VC is finished and it involves trialling and assessing pilot or draftforms of an interpretive activity or product to understand how itworks (Lee 1998; Screven 1996). The advantage of conductingformative evaluation is that it is done before significant resources havebeen expended to produce and/or present an interpretative productor service.

Formal summative evaluation is a systematic and planned processfocused on assessing the effectiveness of a VC or interpretation thatis already in place (Moscardo 1999; Evans 1999; Bennett 1987). Thisevaluation type is an essential planning tool because it has thecapacity to assess all facets of a centre or an interpretive display afterthe facility is operational. However, it is important to recognise that itmay be difficult to use the results at a specific site because the VC orinterpretation is already in place. However, formal summativeevaluation has the capacity to identify a VC’s strengths andweaknesses and the findings can be used to effect changes at the siteor they can be incorporated into future VC planning, design andoperation (Screven 1996).

10

Given the SVC has been operational since 1992 and the interpretationis in-situ, formal summative evaluation was undertaken. This strategywas appropriate because it had the potential to reveal mistakenassumptions or expectations by the exhibit team or management, anyweaknesses or omissions that may be possible to fix with relative ease,and the thoughts, opinions, feelings and motivations of visitors.

2.2.2 Choice of case study

The SVC was selected in its own right as an extreme or deviant casebecause it offered a highly unusual manifestation of a Tasmanianinterpretive VC in terms of success, failure and controversy (Patton1990). According to Platt (1988:11), this type of case study as onethat can demonstrate that its characteristics are possible and thereforeit ‘must be taken into account in the formulation of generalpropositions’. As such, the Centre provided juxtapositions, andalthough it offers an innovative design and interpretive experience,few visitors choose to see the interpretive display, the Centre has beensubject to controversy (particularly with regard to a number of theinterpretive themes including Aboriginal, gay rights, andconservationists/forest conflicts interpretation), and it has fought forpolitical and financial survival. Finally, the case demonstrates theimpact a VC can have on an area within the social context of a smallcommunity and Tasmania as a whole. As a result, the SVC presents aholistic range of issues, features and possibilities that are importantwhen planning, designing, operating and evaluating other VCs.

2.2.3 Multi-method approach

The most appropriate way to gain an in-depth knowledge of the topicand to overcome problems with research validity, representativenessand bias, was to adopt a balanced multi-method quantitative andqualitative research approach. Often referred to as triangulation ofmethod, this mixed strategy technique helped to overcome thedeficiencies of any one method by ‘combining and thus capitalisingon their individual strengths’ (Blaike 1988 in Minichiello et al.1995:186; Moscardo 1999; Ballantyne et al. 1998, Carter 1997). As aresult, different methods conducted in a time sequence stage wereundertaken. The research started with a literature review. Thisknowledge was then used to develop the SVC on-site research. The

11

material drawn from this research was then used as a ‘bouncing off’point for the key-informant interviews.

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the SVC in theform of a face-to-face structured visitor questionnaire survey andbehavioural mapping in the form of a visitor observations checklist.The emphasis was on ‘standardised methodological procedures’ thatallowed for the generalisation of results from the sample to theCentre’s visiting population (Neuman 2000:125). The researchersasked visitors a variety of questions regarding their behaviour,intentions, attitudes, awareness, motivations and demographiccharacteristics. Behavioural mapping was conducted half-hourly inand around the SVC to record those activities visitors undertook.

A quantitative and qualitative research approach was an appropriatemethod for analysing the survey and visitor observational data for thefollowing reasons.

• The quantitative results were intended to be representative ofsummer visitors to the SVC.

• The emphasis was on the quantification of data in a formal andstructured way to help ensure research objectivity,representativeness, replication and standardisation (Carter 1997;Malhotra et al. 1996).

• As part of the survey, qualitative data were collected and theseresults were intended to provide visitors ‘the opportunity tochallenge ideas on their own terms’ and from their perspective(Robinson 1998:390).

• The survey was the most effective method of enlisting participantcooperation, and it provided a complex understanding of visitorcharacteristics as individuals’ responses could be explored andprobed in-depth (Ballantyne et al. 1998).

• Behavioural mapping was the most effective method to provideunobtrusive observational data without having to approach visitorsdirectly (Moscardo 1999).

12

• Descriptive statistics utilising measures of frequencies,percentages, and cross tabulations were effective quantitativemethods of analysis (Singleton and Straits 1999).

• Interpretive analyses where generalisations and clarification ofmeaning were made from the quantitative results to the overallpopulation were an effective analytical tool (Jacobs 1999).

Qualitative data in the form of semi-structured key informantinterviews considered an important component of this study. Thequalitative data were used as a natural concomitant to thequantitative research and it provided contextual data to help improvethe validity of the visitor survey (Minichiello et al. 1995:10). Aqualitative research approach was an appropriate method foranalysing key informant for the following reasons.

• The qualitative results were not intended to be representative.

• To ensure that ‘detail, complexity and differentiation did notoverwhelm the research’, the key informant group was small(Massey and Meegan 1985: 153).

• Given that the key informants’ had vastly different perspective’s ofthe research topic, semi-structured interviews that were tailoredfor each subject was the most suitable method to elicitinformation (Singleton and Straits 1999; Minichiello et al. 1995).

• The emphases of the key informant datum were upon insight andunderstanding with ‘an analysis of meanings in specific contextsrather than with a formulation of generalities’ (Robinson1998:409).

• The classification of the key informant datum into themes was aneffective method of data analysis (Neuman 2000).

13

2.3 Data Collection

2.3.1 Structured visitor questionnaire survey

An integral method of data collection consisted of a face-to-facestructured visitor questionnaire survey at the SVC (Appendix A).Initially, the target population was clearly identified and defined as allpeople visiting the SVC over the survey period. The target populationwas then divided into two groups – those accessing information andtourist services (the majority of visitors) and those paying to see thedisplay (the subpopulation). A sampling frame was constructed toprovide an operational definition of the target population. This rule ofmembership was defined as all visitors leaving the SVC. A samplingregime was then developed.

Probability sampling was undertaken to ensure the survey sample wasrepresentative of both the target population and subpopulation. Astratified sampling regime was used, where face-to-face personalinterviews were conducted at centrally located intercept surveys. Eachinterviewer was strategically positioned outside the exits of the Centreto ensure that visitors leaving the facility were sampled regardless ofwhich areas inside the facility they accessed. To commence the survey,each interviewer randomly selected a visitor as they exited the SVC.After this initial survey was completed, they approached one personfrom the next visitor group leaving the information foyer or display.The researchers calculated the sampling interval as the time taken tocomplete a survey.

Visitors paying to see the display were over-sampled disproportionately.As a result, the stratified and systematic sampling regime was modifiedto meet the SVCs specific sampling constraints for the followingreasons.

• Visitors accessing information and tourist services are a largepercentage of the total visiting population and it was anticipatedthat random processes would result in the survey-sampling targetbeing easily met.

14

• Visitors accessing the display are a small percentage of the totalvisiting population and random processes could miss the stratumby chance.

• The researchers wished to question visitors seeing the display toelicit their opinions of, and interaction with, the exhibits.

• A larger sample size is more likely to reflect the full diversity ofvisitors seeing the display.

A target sample size of 200 surveys was calculated to producespecified or acceptable levels of accuracy for those accessinginformation and services (Rundle pers. comm. 2001). However, it wasrecognised that it might be difficult to achieve this target as thenumber of people visiting the display was low. Consequently, aminimum sample target of fifty responses was considered adequatefor surveying visitors to the display (Carter 1997). This studyrecognises that the target samples may not be representative of thetotal visiting SVC population, however, they are likely to berepresentative of the target population for the peak summer holidayperiod.

2.3.2 Survey instrumentation

The survey was custom-built. Key stakeholders were consulted anddraft questions were distributed to industry representatives. Languagein the surveys was kept short, easy to understand and free of jargonor abbreviations. Leading and loaded questions were avoided anddouble-barrelled questions were separated. A combination of open-and closed-questions were used to elicit both quantitative andqualitative data, to change the pace of the survey and to helpestablish visitor rapport. Closed questions (structured, fixed response,numerical) were used to make responses quicker and easier forvisitors, and to simplify coding and data analysis (Neuman 2000).These questions asked respondents to choose between severalpredetermined answers and they included a combination of Likertscales that offered a list of ranked responses, rating scales, lists,categories, and ‘yes/no’ answers. Open-ended questions(unstructured, free response, holistic) were included to improve thedata richness, provide context and determine visitor attitudes,

15

perceptions and opinions (Robinson 1998; Minichiello et al. 1995).Neutral, non-attitudinal choices were included to ensure thatrespondents did not express an opinion on fictitious issues, and tohelp the researchers identify those without opinions or holding middlepositions. Standard socio-demographic data were collected includinggender, age, origin, education, social context, and visitors withmobility difficulties. Prompt cards were not used.

A pilot survey was completed at the SVC in December 2000. Thissurvey was completed in one day and it targeted visitors during theoff-peak tourist season. In total, 5% of the intended target samplewas surveyed. Fifteen pilot surveys were successfully completed withfourteen respondents using information and tourist services and onepaying to see the display. The pilot survey confirmed thatapproximately 10% of visitors pay to see the display and relevantfindings were incorporated into the survey.

Face-to-face personal interviews were conducted at the SVC over athree-day period from 10 January to 12 January 2001. Respondentswere questioned throughout the day to ensure all visitor types weretargeted. The timing of the survey was carefully selected to coincidewith Strahan’s peak summer tourist season. The survey teamcomprised of three females and three males to reduce gender relatedinterviewer bias.

2.3.3 Visitor survey validity

The visitor survey was an unbiased sample because respondents wererandomly selected. After targeting the initial respondent by chance,each interviewer approached one person from the next group leavingthe Centre or display. Given that approximately 10% of all visitors andmost visitor groups to the SVC were surveyed (assuming 850 visitorsto the Centre daily and an average group size of 3-4 people), thesurvey results for those accessing information can be generalised tothe wider SVC visiting summer population (December - March).However, because fewer visitors see the display, these people weretargeted disproportionately and approximately 19% of all visitors and65% of all visitor groups accessing this area were sampled. Althoughthe next visitor group leaving the display was selected, given the smallsample size and the disproportionate sampling these results are less

16

generalisable to the wider SVC visiting summer population and only abroad overview can be taken regarding these results.

2.3.4 Response rate

In total, 287 visitors were approached, 252 visitor surveys werecompleted and 35 people refused to participate. All surveyscompleted targeted visitor information and tourist services and 50surveys provided data specifically related to the display.

A survey’s response rate is broadly defined as ‘the percentage of thetotal attempted interviews that are completed’ (Malhotra 1996:170).There is considerable debate amongst researchers as to whatconstitutes an adequate response rate for face-to-face interviews.However, most consider anything below 50% to be poor, 75% to beadequate and 90% as excellent (Neuman 2000). According to thesecriteria, the SVC response rate was high and 88% of all visitorsapproached in the survey completed the questionnaire. As a result, non-response bias effects are unlikely to have significantly skewed the surveyresults. Reasons given by visitors for not participating where a lack oftime, lack of interest or because they did not speak adequate English.

2.3.5 Visitor observations

Visitor observations were conducted in a structured and systematicmanner half-hourly during the survey period to compliment theresearch and assist in interpreting the visitor survey findings (Kearns2000). The observations were conducted by the principal fieldresearcher and they helped to establish the accuracy of visitor surveyresponses and determine how visitors actually behaved in and aroundthe SVC. The method was developed after the researchers observedvisitors during the pilot survey. An assessment was made on whichfactors and visitor actions could be recorded accurately. Given theCentre’s lack of space and narrow pathways, the researcherconsidered that the most effective method of obtaining visitorinformation unobtrusively and in a manner where visitors behavednaturally was to conduct behavioural mapping. This techniquerequired the observer to enter a setting at regular intervals anddocument what visitors were doing at that moment (Moscardo 1999).

17

Behavioural mapping was divided into two zones. All aspects of theCentre’s immediate surroundings including the amphitheatre andinformation foyer were included into Zone A and the interpretivedisplay was included in Zone B. A detailed observation checklist wasdeveloped to record visitor numbers and interactions at 35 locationsin and around the Centre’s zones (Appendix B). Given the small sizeof the Centre, the researcher was able to re-visit strategic positionsthroughout the Centre when collecting the observational data.

2.3.6 Semi-structured interviews with key informants

An important data collection method consisted of semi-structuredinterviews with key informants who had specific and in-depthknowledge of the research topic. The subjects were selected byapproaching the SVC, State and Local government departments, interestgroups, interpretive designers, and tourism industry representatives. Theresearchers provided the subjects a brief description of the study andrequested contact names of persons suitable to be interviewed. As aresult, qualitative purposive sampling was utilised to select cases thatwould be especially informative, and snowball or chain sampling wasused when subjects were referred by others (Neuman 2000; Singletonand Straits 1999; Minichiello et al. 1995).

Those interviewed included (i) State government officials from theTasmanian PWS, and Tourism Tasmania; (ii) Local government officialsfrom the West Coast Council; (iii) an interest group representativefrom the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council (TALC); (iv) Strahantourism industry representatives; and (v) interpretive designers. A totalof eight people were interviewed as listed below:

• Mr Simon Currant: Managing Director, The Strahan Village, Strahan, Tasmania.

• Mr Richard Davey: Managing Director, The Round Earth Company, Tasmania.

• Mr Richard Flanagan: Writer and Interpretive Designer, Hobart, Tasmania.

18

• Ms Jane Foley: General Manager, Market and Tourist Development, Tourism Tasmania, Tasmania.

• Mr Daryl Gerrity: West Coast Mayor, West Coast Council,Zeehan, Tasmania.

• Ms Susan Haimes: Planner and Project Coordinator (VisitorCentres), Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania.

• Mr John Hepper: Tourism Consultant, Inspiring Place,Hobart, Tasmania.

• Mr Gregory Lehman: Planning Officer (Aboriginal), TasmanianParks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania.

The information-gathering process was tailored to the respondents ina way that was acceptable to them. The majority of interviews wereconducted in person in Strahan and Hobart. When these methodswere not practicable, interviews were conducted on a telephone or inwriting. Before each interview, the respondents were given anInformation Sheet and Consent Form describing the nature andpurpose of the project. They were then invited to participate in theresearch. Those who agreed were asked ten to fifteen questions. Theinterviews lasted approximately sixty minutes. An individual schedulewas developed for each interview to ensure the specific expertise andperspective of the informant was elicited. This study explored themesrather than asking a series of set questions, and each interview wasdesigned so that ideas and opinions could be expressed freely(Robinson 1998).

All interviews were recorded on tape or in writing and transcribed.Interview transcripts were then sent to the respondents forverification and revision where necessary. The researchers soughtpermission to cite material and where personal communicationsappear in the text, those interviewed have granted permission fortheir use. However, given the sensitivity of some issues related to theSVC, informants were informed of their right to anonymity. None ofthe informants asked to remain anonymous.

19

2.4 Data Analysis

The quantitative aspects of the fieldwork were pre- and post coded.Data coding consisted of labelling the responses to questions in aunique and abbreviated way (using numerical codes) in order tofacilitate data entry and manipulation (Neuman 2000; Singleton andStraits 1999). Coding commenced as the visitor survey was developedand precoding of closed questions in particular was completed priorto collecting data. Precoding was tested in the pilot survey andchanges were made where necessary. The survey’s qualitative, open-ended questions were transcribed verbatim and categorised into keywords, themes and concepts. Coding of open-ended questions wasundertaken after the survey was completed before data processing.

Analyses of the visitor surveys were undertaken in the field and at theUniversity of Tasmania. Initially, the researchers inspected thecompleted surveys in the field to ensure that observational data andsurvey questions had been recorded correctly. The survey data were‘cleaned’ using the software package Survey System Version 7 anddata analysis were performed using SPSS Version 10. The behaviouralmapping, visitor refusal and visitor comment data were entered intoEXCEL 97. The majority of the survey and observational data utilisesmeasures of frequencies, percentages, and cross tabulations and as aresult, the analysis is descriptive. The survey also included data thatwas classified into distinct categories using ranked, interval and ratioscales. Here, a qualitative approach utilising interpretive analysis wasemployed to make generalisations and inferences from these resultsto the overall population (Singleton and Straits 1999; Jacobs 1999).

A thematic analysis of the interview data were undertaken whereanalytic induction was used to allow for ideas to emerge from thedata as it were collected (Minichiello et al. 1990). Data codingcommenced at the beginning of the fieldwork as the researchersrecognised that categorisation of interview data into themes is an‘iterative process’ that is repeated frequently during the datacollection and analysis phase (Padgett 2000). After completing aninterview, the researchers examined the transcripts and extracted theconcepts, themes and issues. This preliminary analysis enabled theresearchers to focus questions in light of any outcomes and revise

20

propositions before conducting the next interview (Minichiello et al.1995). Detailed analyses of the interview data were undertaken oncethe interview process was finalised. A humanistic approach wasadopted where ‘the extraction of meanings in a process ofinterpretation’ identified each respondent’s experiences, intentions,actions and feelings (Robinson 1998:410). Critical interpretation wasused where descriptive themes were identified and comparisons weremade between interviews, between and across categories. Inaddition, the respondents were allowed to speak for themselves andverbatim quotations are included in this report.

2.5 Limitations of the Study

Given that researchers must ‘evaluate both the adequacy of theirreasoning and the actuality of their statements’ in terms of thereliability, validity and trustworthiness of their research, theresearchers considered the limitations of the study (Singleton andStraits 1999:43). Firstly, the choice of a single case study presents asignificant limitation. For example, Platt (1988:18) identifies ‘theproblematic areas are the representativeness of cases, and the extentto which they provide a challenge to the fit of theory’. Limitations ofrepresentativeness can also be extended to intensive qualitativeresearch and although the data may provide causal relationships thatare generalisable to other contexts, concrete patterns are unlikely tobe representative (Bradshaw and Stratford 2000). Alternatively,extensive quantitative data, in the form of structured surveys andvisitor observations, may be representative of the visiting SVCpopulation. However, the results may lack explanatory power, or maynot be generalisable to SVC visitors during different seasons or otherVC populations (Massey and Meegan 1985).

The researchers were also aware of sampling and non-samplingerrors. For example, sampling errors may have occurred in the surveydata between the estimate derived from the sample survey and the‘true value’ that would be ‘obtained if the whole population wereenumerated’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1991). In addition, keyinformants may have been selected inappropriately. Alternativelysystematic or random non-sampling errors may have occurred andalthough random errors would tend to cancel themselves out as theyare due to temporary and changing factors, systematic errors may

21

have significantly biased or distorted results (Singleton and Straits1999). To ensure reliability, rigour and trustworthiness, the researchersundertook the following:

(a) Triangulation of data through a multi-method approach wasundertaken to ensure rigour through verification andmultiplication of perspectives.

(b) Professional advice and comments were sought from relevantgovernment departments, private industry and academic bodieswhen developing the methodology.

(c) All stages of the research were documented to ensure researchtransparency (research methodology, data collection and dataanalysis).

(d) The professional market research company Enterprise Marketingassisted in the collection, coding, cleaning and data entry of thesurvey data. Interviewers strictly adhered to the protocols laid out bythe researchers and their assistance helped reduce interviewer bias.

(e) Rigorous checking of all the data was conducted in the field.Enterprise Marketing double-checked the survey data on return toHobart and it was triple-checked during the analysis phase.

(f) Interview transcripts were verified with respondents to confirm anyinterpretations made, and verbatim respondent quotations areincluded in this report to ensure the accuracy of their views.

(g) Research findings were related to the literature and fit within othercontexts outside the study situation.

22

3.1 The Growth of Tourism in Australia

Tourism is defined by the World Tourism Organization and theAustralian Bureau of Statistics as travel for more than 40 km andinvolving at least one stay overnight (but for less than 12 months).Australia has experienced substantial international tourism growthwith numbers increasing by 50%, from 2.5 million to 4.9 millionbetween 1992 and 2000 (Tourism Forecasting Council 2001). Thistrend is expected to continue with arrivals growing at a rate of 7% toreach 9.8 million by 2010. The domestic market is also expected toincrease at a rate of 2% from 2000 to 2010 from 249 million to 359million. However, considerable debate exists as to whether tourismcan either be sustained or protect the environment, particularly asconsumers are travelling further, staying longer and going to moreexotic places (Ryan et al. 2000; Moscardo et al. 1998; Wall 1997;Ioannides 1995). As a result, the International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, WorldConservation Union) suggests that tourism should move visitorexperiences beyond passive enjoyment to an active role that‘promotes positive environmental ethics and fosters preferredbehaviour’ (Ceballos-Lascurain 1996:28). These issues are directlyrelevant to Australia, as tourists are said to be increasingly demandingexperiences that are enjoyable, educational, nature-based andenvironmentally sustainable (Woods and Moscardo 1996). Ecotourismhas emerged as one solution and is becoming an important sector inAustralia’s sustainable tourism industry.1

Within the Australian tourism industry, Tasmania has been positionedas a prime ecotourist destination. Tasmania offers unique wildernessexperiences and visitors to the island State seek natural places, cultureand interactions with people. The State has also experiencedincreasing visitor numbers with 510 700 tourists visiting Tasmania in2000 (Tourism Tasmania 2001). Given that over the last decade

23

3. DESIGNING EFFECTIVE VISITOR CENTRES

1 The Ecotourism Society (1992:1) has defined ecotourism as ‘responsible travel to natural areas thatconserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’.Sustainable tourism ‘is economically viable but does not destroy the resources on which the futureof tourism will depend, notably the physical environment and social fabric of the host community’(Swarbrooke 1999:241).

tourism growth has been estimated at 4% per year and the industrycontributes approximately 10% of Gross State Product (TourismCouncil Australia 1999), tourism is now vital to the State’s economicand social well-being. To meet the demands of Tasmania’s growingtourism industry, funding has been allocated for additional VCs.

3.2 Understanding the Audience

According to Poon (1993 in Moscardo 1999) tourists today are moreexperienced travellers, educated, destination oriented, independent,flexible and environmentally conscious, and in Australia, bothdomestic and international tourists consider that learning andincreasing knowledge are important motivations. In addition, Eagles(1997:10) suggests that visitor satisfaction to remote, environmentallysensitive or tourist areas are closely correlated with ‘environmentalquality, the adequacy of facilities and programs and the accuracy ofexpectations’. Consequently, if visitors are increasingly seeking green,educational experiences, then planners and other stakeholders needto provide quality VCs that emphasise environmental protection,communication and interpretation.

Tourists can be broadly classified into demographic type and althoughage, sex, education and origin provide indications of a visitor’spotential needs, demographic information alone may not be sufficientwhen designing VCs. Smith (1978 in Pearce et al. 1991) argues thatvisitors can also be categorised into tourist type (from the rarely seenexplorer through to the incipient mass charter arrivals) and that astourist groups increase in size, their impact on communities steadilyincreases.

Evans (1999), Faggetter (1996) and Hanna (1995) argue that touristsare not homogeneous and they arrive with their values, interests,motivations and concerns that are shaped by previous lifeexperiences. Stewart et al. (1998) agree, and add that tourists can befurther categorised into seekers, stumblers, shadowers and shunners,with those most likely to absorb new information falling into thestumblers/satisfied category. Thus, there are many types of touristsand it is important to correctly identify the audience, as people seekout experiences and learn new information differently (Hall andMcArthur 1998; Christensen 1994). Therefore, if planners are to

24

design effectively VCs and select services and interpretation, the firststep is identifying the audience and accepting that every tourist isdifferent. By understanding the audience, planners are more likely toidentify those traits common to each group. According to theseauthors, this approach ensures that services and environmentallyfocused interpretation are targeted to meet visitor needs. This in turnhelps planners fulfil their objectives in relation to the VC’smanagement and operation, and in achieving positive visitorexperiences where individuals are open to new information. However,it can be argued that this approach is theoretically impoverished,because discretely categorising people into groups subjectivelyhomogenises them regardless of their individual qualities ormotivations. In addition, classification of tourists assumes thatknowledge is acquired and assimilated immediately.

3.3 The Role of Visitor Centres

Given the increasing role of VCs in Australian tourism, stakeholdersmust critically assess whether they are effective management tools inproviding information, regulating increasing visitor numbers andreducing tourism related environmental impact. Thus, to ensure thatVCs are sustainable and effective Beckmann (1991) argues for: fullyintegrating VC design with interpretive media to ensure that designprecedes development; and recognising that VCs are a part of acomprehensive interpretive strategy that incorporates realisticmonitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

3.3.1 Diversity and function

VCs are diverse and they serve to varying degrees a multiplicity offunctions. They may be visitor, orientation, information, tourism,interpretive, nature, cultural, discovery, and adventure centres, oreven park museums and ranger stations (Moscardo 1993; Benson andBaird 1979). However, as their primary function is to serve people,then VC is an appropriate term. Sugden and Saunders (1991) statethat VCs can be grandiose, like that of the Cardwell InformationCentre at Queensland’s gateway to the tropics. Alternatively, centrescan be small like the tent that was utilised at Mon ReposEnvironmental Park in Queensland during the turtle nesting season(prior to the construction of a permanent facility) (Office of National

25

Tourism 1996; Harmon-Price 1991). In addition, VCs show markeddiversity in site location, landscaping, architectural sympathy withtheir context and quality, as exemplified by the South Australian SealBay Visitor Centre that is designed and constructed for lowenvironmental impact on sand dunes (Office of National Tourism1996; Pearce 1991). However, although VCs often include a numberof elements in their design and each VC has its own uniquecharacteristics, they generally have a basic structure (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 The basic elements of many visitor centres.

Moscardo (1993; 1998; 1999), Wylde (1996), Pearce (1991) andSugden and Saunders (1991) identify four primary functions of VCs asfollows.

1 Marketing and access – this traditional role of informationcentres actively promotes an area or product. It involves sellingwhat to do in areas, conveying how to get there and suggestingwhere to stay. This function is often dominant in New Zealand andBritish Information Centres where advance accommodationbooking and souvenir sales are key elements.

26

Source: Malbon 1976:353

2 Enhancement and information – this traditional role ofinterpretation centres focuses on improving the quality of thevisitor experience and appreciation process. For example, theCardwell Visitor Centre located mid-way between Townsville andCairns, Queensland introduces visitors to the Wet Tropics and therecreational opportunities of the area.

3 Control and filtering – this policing and directing function helpsreduce visitor pressure on resources. VC location can physicallyconcentrate visitors away from fragile sites, and messages can helpshape visitors’ attitudes toward more environmentally sensitivetourist activity. By highlighting park management, undesirablebehaviour can be reduced as staff can establish resourcestewardship. These centres include the VC at Phillip Island, Victoriaand the Skyrail Rainforest Cableway Interpretation Centre in NorthEastern Australia’s WHA.

4 Substitution – VCs can be a substitute for the attraction itself andmay include those where the resource is vulnerable and/orinaccessible or is scattered and difficult to appreciate in itscomponent parts (for example, Aboriginal cultural heritage,wilderness, and marine, desert or Antarctic environments). Thesecentres may be attractions in their own right and they may chargefees and have a strong commercial flavour. The balance of thesefunctions varies and many visitors see nothing of the actualresource itself – for example, Antarctic Adventure, Tasmania.

Public relations is an additional function suggested by Absher (1997)and Turner (1991:156) who state that VCs should improve agovernment’s image and convince visitors that an agency ‘is doing agood job at managing an area’. In Tasmania, the Forest and HeritageTrail Visitor Centre is marketed as the gateway to the Southern Forestsand this enhancement and information centre has a strongcommercial flavour. In addition, it conveys an understanding aboutTasmania’s forests and how they are managed.

Although VCs have primary functions, many centres includeadditional elements depending upon the circumstance. For example,the Cradle Mountain Visitor Centre in the TWWHA provides aninterpretive substitute wilderness experience. In addition, it markets

27

the region, provides a reservation service for the Waldheim Huts, anda means by which management can impart conservation messagesand control visitor pressure on the surrounding environment.Alternatively, Canada’s WHA Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump presentsthe viewpoints of both the indigenous peoples and Europeanarchaeological science, in addition to providing a substitute prehistoricbuffalo hunt experience, souvenirs and a booking service (NationalPark Service 2000a).

3.3.2 Designing a complete strategy

Black and Mackay (1995) and the Department of Conservation andLand Management ([CALM] 1988) argue that strategic and stagedplanning of VCs and interpretation strategies is required at theregional (ecosystem) level if the centre’s are to be considered within amore holistic framework. A hypothetical example of regional planningis detailed in Figure 3.2, and here the first centre is the critical accesspoint where management has an opportunity to reach a wide targetaudience, service visitor needs and market the region. Visitors fromthis centre are then guided and filtered towards other more remotecentres where the resource is under greater pressure. An increasinglysubstitutive experience is provided to ensure that environmentalimpacts are minimised. This approach, even if only partially adoptedin Australia, would help improve the visitors’ experience, andmanagement objectives may be achieved more readily as messagescould be coordinated, complementary, cost efficient and consistent.

28

Figure 3.2 Regional planning of visitor centres.

Regional planning is not widely used in Australia or overseas,although the Yellowstone National Park, USA offers a partial example.Eight centres are located strategically throughout Yellowstone and, inaddition to providing a layered system of information and orientation,they provide interpretive programs tailored to ‘each of the park’scountries’ (sic) (National Park Service 2000b). These centres aredivided into: satellite centres located in communities close to the park;gateway centres located at park entrances; and in-park centres(National Park Service 2000b).

29

Source – Pearce 1991:14

Alternatively, Molloy (1992) describes the New Zealand experience informulating a national interpretation plan (at the regional level) whereVCs are now more integrated with live interpretation during summervisitor programs, information provided at remote field huts, heritagehighways and activity sites. However, Molloy (1992) suggests thatproblems may arise when interpretation ‘units’ cross administrative orstate boundaries. For example, Black and Mackay (1995:62) describethe development of an interpretation strategy for the Australian Alpsas a single unit where ‘cross-border administrative arrangements’ andcollaboration between agencies was required. Thus, cooperationbetween agencies, the tourism industry, local communities and stategovernments is required in Australia if an integrated and regionalapproach to VC and interpretive planning is to be successful.

Considering that VCs are expensive, long-term projects, Pearce (1991)argues the importance of linking VC growth and function to thegrowth of tourism and planning strategies. However, the decision toconstruct a VC is often influenced by political and administrativeagendas as well as educational criteria (Hall and McArthur 1998;Hockings and Moscardo 1991). For example, Tatnell (1991) points outthat the Namadgi National Park Visitor Centre near Canberra wasbuilt to orientate visitors to the park and provide educationalinformation. However, due to a bureaucratic compromise betweengovernment agencies and not an interpretation plan, this centre wasnot sited in the park, but on the main road tourist route out fromCanberra.2 However, the VC’s siting compromised the Centre’scapacity to orientate visitors to the park or provide an intimate parkexperience and as a result, the park boundary was moved nearer tothe Centre. Consequently, implementing planning advice at the site-specific and regional levels is important if VCs are to be effective andsustainable.

3.3.3 The Tasmanian experience

The TWWHA covers over 20% of Tasmania and, as such, thislandscape sets it apart from the other Australian States and Territories.It is also an important element of this island’s image as a tourist

30

2 A new and additional VC based on sustainable building practice, the Tidbinbilla Visitor Centre, hasrecently opened at the gateway of the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, which is adjacent to the NamadgiNational Park.

destination (Tourism Tasmania 2000). In an effort to promote, manageand protect the WHA and other equally unique Tasmanianenvironments, VCs are becoming popular and many new centres areproposed. Sugden and Saunders (1991) explain that in Tasmania, VCsand interpretive services have been provided largely on a park-to-parkbasis, and now planning at the regional scale is being undertaken.Fortunately, Tasmanian’s have the opportunity to take a holisticapproach when planning new VCs as the State does not generallyneed to cope with the legacy of numerous, older ad hoc facilities,because it has not had the resources to build them.

Today, the TWWHA is treated as a single unit or region, where theTPWS’s overall objective, as defined under the World HeritageConvention, is ‘to identify, protect, conserve, present and, whereappropriate, rehabilitate the world heritage area and other naturaland cultural values of the WHA and to transmit that heritage to futuregenerations in as good or better condition than present’ (TasmanianParks and Wildlife Service [TPWS] 2000:3). Despite the worthyintentions of this plan, it must be questioned if it is possible to achievea ‘better condition’ than the present one, what elements maycontribute to a ‘better condition’, or which particular view of a ‘bettercondition’ is the most appropriate.

Notwithstanding the debate regarding environmental condition, theTasmanian WHA Interpretation Strategy was developed in 1990 tohelp achieve the TPWS’s overall objective for the TWWHA. This reportidentifies that interpretation of the TWWHA for tourists areimportant, as Tasmania’s natural beauty, wilderness and wildlife,along with history and cultural heritage are the strength of the State’stourism product (Saunders 1990). The strategy outlines a five-yearvision and it was developed concurrently with the TWWHAManagement Plan. As such, it recommends that VCs be built as partof an overall, holistic and theme-based strategy. Although thisstrategy is now out-dated, it continues to be the definitive documentas no other strategy provides clear interpretive directions. A secondInterpretive Strategy for Tasmania’s Parks, Reserves and Historic Sites,was commissioned by the TPWS in 1992, however, this document hasnot been implemented because it is confusing and convoluted(Winkworth et al. 1994). Despite this report’s shortfalls, it identifiedthat the government needs to reach a wider audience than only those

31

gaining access to the TWWHA. As such, it argues that interpretationbecomes the underlying commitment for the whole Service and thatnon-WHA areas be afforded the same care and resources as theTWWHA. Together, these strategies refer directly to the TWWHAManagement Plan. As such, VCs have been built in Visitor ServiceZones within the TWWHA, and on the edge of the area tocomplement, rather than conflict or compete with the environment oreach other (TPWS 2000).

The TFC and the TVIN have also constructed VCs outside the TWWHA(Cubit 1991; Tasmanian Visitor Information Network [TVIN] 1999).These centres partially fulfil the regional planning model, as visitorsare either directed into Tasmanian forests, or they are offeredinformation and tourist services by the TVIN at strategically locatedcentres. However, they do not necessarily provide an avenue to impartmanagement messages or control visitors to the same degree as thosesupported by the TPWS, as governmental departments with abusiness focus operate them, under MOUs, concessionaireagreements or as commercial operations. Although The TasmanianAttractions Study (Tourism Solutions and Inspiring Place 1999)provides a strategic framework by which the tourism industry andgovernment can work together to better present Tasmania’sattractions, (including TFC, TVIN and TPWS VCs), agencies may alsoneed to develop a comprehensive interpretation strategy with a broadcross-agency view. This strategy should be aligned with TheTasmanian Attractions Study to ensure that VC services are targetedappropriately, and interpretation and education activities are alignedwith management objectives. Considering the importance ofTasmanian tourism, this approach may provide integrated quality VCexperiences between centres, and distinctive regional products thatare viable, different and interesting.

3.4 Designing for Distinctiveness

3.4.1 Planning and design

Grenier et al. (1993) argue that planners and architects are importantin the delivery of sustainable tourism and ecotourism goals and VCsthat reflect public attitudes, expectations and consciousness. If VCsare planned and constructed in a considered and sequential manner,

32

each facility may encompass a greater number of essential elements(Table 3.1). In particular, community and indigenous consultation, andthe design and operation of facilities in a relatively honest and ethicalmanner were not specifically highlighted. Therefore, VC designelements need to be compiled first into a single set of criterion, andthen incorporated into an overall strategy that includes communityand indigenous consultation. Planners and architects should considerelements that offer unique and ethical solutions, sustainability,environmental sensitivity, distinctive and site-specific design, variety,functionality, access to all, safety and flexibility. In addition, Harmon-Price (1991) states that in the past, a standard building design wasadopted to overcome delays associated with site specific design. Thisapproach had drawbacks as it did not reflect each area’s character,community or climate, and VCs tended to be more of an office thana place to inspire visitors. Finally, Pearce (1991:140) suggests thatdistinctive design welcomes visitors and assists their ‘sense of place’,promotes awareness of local environments and encouragesexploration (when confronted with novelty and the unexpected,people become mindful and curious). Pearce (1991) argues that newfacilities are well received when they offer: distinctive experiences ofa setting/landscape which are subtle or imposing; excellent designand synergy of the building with its environment; imaginativeexperiences extending beyond the centre; and variety and distinctiveexperiences within and between VCs where synergy is achievedthrough mixing substitution, marketing, enhancement and control.

Table 3.1 Planning and design elements of visitor centres

DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Is the VC required? VCs are costly to build, staff, outfit and maintain – question if the VCis required.

Analyse the problem Do not preconceive your solution before analysing the problem and first do not decide on your media before establishing the program

objectives.

Incorporate the VC A VC should be a part of a multi-disciplinary framework. It shouldinto the entire not be the program, but a catalyst – not a place to begin or endstrategy your program. Ensure the facility is out-turned rather than in-turned.

Involve communities The involvement and co-operation of the local and/or indigenouscommunity is important if interpretation is to be inclusive, authenticand truly sustainable.

33


Plan and design the Plan and design the program before development begins orbeforeentire program modifying an existing program. Clearly identify site and audiencetogether characteristics, and the themes and stories to be told. Vital in terms of

planning and budgeting (i.e. staff resources).

Choose unique Whilst considering the VC within an overall strategy do not assumesolutions that a solution effective at one location will work at another. Analyse

the site-specific problems.

Consult Consult with qualified and experienced people. Appropriateconsultants will bring knowledge, depth and innovative solutions tothe program.

Use a team Include within the team an architect, a programmer, a planner and adesigner.

Develop goals Determine if the VC is to meet cost recovery objectives or interpretiveobjectives.

Choose the site Correct location is essential, as the site will create a sense of place,carefully harmonise with the environment and help determine the programs’

evolution and direction.

Construct an Build VCs with minimum environmental impact and proper concern environmentally for using materials that reflect the surroundings and/or eliminatessensitive facility day-to-day maintenance. Buildings should use recycled materials and

low quantities of water and electricity.

Look to the future Include elements that have a long life but which do not cost a lot tomaintain.

Carefully plan the VC The inside space, its size, the location of displays and the flow patternbetween each is critical to the success of the VC. Design for multipleuses and flexibility (an outside theatre and adjustable, updateabledisplays).

Use variety Use interactive exhibits and static displays. Consider dioramas,murals, a children’s corner, a transition area and a place to relax, readand reflect on the VC.

Construct a Do not build monuments that reflect only the designers or architectsfunctional facility needs. Build for people including children, as parents are more likely

to take an interest in the VC and the conservation messages of thecentre appeals to all ages. Ensure shelter and comfort; contact withmanagement staff; interpretive support services areas; and non-interpretive support services including toilets and administration areas.

Go back to basics Interpretation can be inexpensive, as visitors often seek low-techexperiences.

34


Provide welcome Ensure the VC welcomes, orientates and encapsulating the spirit ofthe place.

Reduce visitor fatigue Reduce visitor fatigue by adding seating; reducing stimulus overload;providing information free spaces; accommodating different learningstyles/abilities; using efficient and creative communication; and using‘conceptual advance organisers’.

Be safety, security Provide facilities and information to encourage safety and comfort.and access Vandalism, security and access can be reduced through goodconscious design. Parking should be adequate and easily accessed from the VC.

Determine and Ensure that resources are available not only for construction,confirm resources but also for operation, maintenance and the delivery of interpretive

programs. Inadequate resources ultimately results in an unsustainablecentre, frustrated operators, lack of management support andfunding, and an under-utilised VC of poor standard.

Service provision Respect and consideration is important – for visitors, the communityand VC staff.

Ensure adequate VCs must be well signposted and adequately publicised (i.e. visitorspublicity should know that the VC is sustainably designed and operated). VCs

should open at times to meet the visitor’s needs.

Adapted from many sources including - Moscardo 1993, 1998; Eagles 1997; Nephin ConsultingPartners 1997; Payne and Dimanche 1996; Screven 1996; Department of Tourism 1995; Christensen1994; Pearce 1991; Harmon-Price 1991; Turner 1991; Beckmann 1990; Department ofConservation and Land Management (CALM) 1988; Peart 1986; Benson and Baird 1979; Beazley1969 in Beckmann 1991

3.4.2 Location

According to Ballantyne and Uzzell (1999), planners must consider VClocation because the siting and appearance of a facility is essential toits success. Planners should assess if the VC is for visitors,management, planners, the wider community or the environment.Beazley (1969 in Beckmann 1991) argues that VCs should be playeddown visually if they are not to compete with the features they seekto interpret. Benson and Baird (1979) provide an alternative view andsuggest that although site selection needs to be sensitive, the VCshould command a dominant location to entice visitors. For example,the original VC at the Royal National Park (NSW) was designed tointrude minimally both visually and physically (Beckmann 1991).However, according to Beckmann, the facility was not used as it was

35

sited away from where visitors congregated and a new, more centrallypositioned VC was built. Despite the Centre’s relocation to the park’sentrance, it may still not adequately service visitors as they may bypassthe facility when going to desirable locations. Conversely, statesBeckmann (1991), the British Sherwood Forest Visitor Centre wasbuilt as a substitute experience to relieve pressure on the region’smost important interpretive feature, Major Oak. However, the VCresulted in visitor impacts to the area significantly increasing. As aresult, the specific circumstances of each VC should be assessedbefore, during and after a decision on its location is made. However,Australia VCs are often located at the periphery of national parks orcultural sites, and although management messages and interpretationare contained within the facilities, the natural or heritage area itselfmay have none. Consequently, poor interaction between the visitorand the environment may occur, which in turn may reduce the qualityof visitor experiences and understanding.

3.5 Planning Effective Interpretation

3.5.1 Managing tourism in sensitive areas

Planners have traditionally used three main techniques to managevisitors in tourist areas (Orams 1996; Sugden and Saunders 1991;Dutton 1991). These are as follows.

• Physical controls – to separate tourists from environmentallysensitive areas and influence behaviour (i.e., barriers, paths,boardwalks, zoning).

• Direct controls – imposed or enforced, to prohibit or restrictdetrimental behaviour (i.e., rules, regulations, permits andcharges).

• Indirect mechanisms – the reduction of inappropriate behaviourvoluntarily through interpretation (i.e., interpretation within a VC).

Interpretation has largely arisen in response to these tourism needsand it is becoming increasingly used as an important interventionstrategy for reaching visitors with potentially influential messages(Moscardo 1998; Absher 1997; Wolfe 1997; Veverka 1997; Ham and

36

Krumpe 1996). This may be with the intention of enhancingrecreational experiences and public relations, or to provideinformation and booking services. However, planners may also wishto inform, modify or replace problematic behaviours wheninterpreting sensitive topics or environmentally sensitive areas. To thisend, VC interpretation can help reduce the need for regulation andenforcement, increase awareness of appropriate behaviour andenable careful distribution of visitor pressure on environments. Thus,VC interpretation can improve the quality of visitor interactions andoverall experience by encouraging them to understand the hostregion, and an area’s natural and cultural values. However, achievingthis potential and imparting management messages requires qualityinterpretation that keeps visitors as the central focus in a respectfuland intelligent way, and a match between visitor wants and what thedestination has to offer. Thus, argues Moscardo (1998:154), if VCinterpretation is to be improved it is critical to ‘better understand whatvisitors already know, need to know and want to know’.

3.5.2 What is interpretation?

Orams (1996) states that interpretation is traditionally used todescribe the translation of meaning from one spoken language toanother. For remote and environmentally sensitive areas the definitionis similar, and interpretation in this context was given meaning byFreeman Tilden in 1957. He defined interpretation as ‘an educationalactivity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through theuse of original objects, by first hand experience, and by illustrativemedia, rather than simply to communicate factual information’(Tilden 1957:9).

At that time, Tilden (1957 in Evans 2000; CALM 1988) proposed thatinterpretation needs to evoke an emotional response and it should berelevant, revealing, creative, provocative, holistic and focussed. Manydefinitions have been outlined since and although they often have adiffering focus, the essential elements of interpretation are similar.Interpretation is about communication and education (Moscardo1999; Absher 1997; Cheatley 1994). It is the process of explainingplace significance to visitors, providing enjoyable and meaningfulexperiences; promoting understanding, empathising with orappreciating subjects; or imparting management objectives (Stewart

37

et al. 1998; Moscardo et al. 1998; Absher 1997; Nephin ConsultingPartners 1997; Aldridge 1988). CALM (1988:1.1) refines thisdefinition and describes interpretation as ‘the craft of enriching visitorexperience’ in an educational and entertaining way (it is an interactiveprocess involving the visitor, medium and resource). Knapp (1997:19)adds that interpretation should also have impact on a visitor’s point ofview and sometimes behaviour, with respect to protectingenvironmental values, to fulfil the ‘aspirations of conservationists aswell as to act as a major force for the social, economic, political andcultural good’. Thus, VC interpretation is about experience and thepersuasive communication of ideas and feelings that help visitorsenrich their understanding and appreciation of their world, and theirroles within it – in an effort to foster positive visitor values andbehaviour for the area. Interpretation is also an art that is derived froma range of disciplines and its success depends on how well itcommunicates.

3.5.3 Social change

Although interpretation’s mission and core definition has remainedstable, its character has changed significantly to reflect changes inaudiences and society (Ballantyne and Uzzell 1999; Absher 1997).Reductions in funding, suggests Vander Stoep (1988:29), ‘underliemany of the other trends’, particularly as to who provides the services.In Britain, North America and New Zealand many VCs now result fromthe joint efforts of the tourist industry, conservation organisations andregional and local governments (Radford 1991; Atkinson 1991). InAustralia, these groups rarely met in the past, and today cooperationis more widespread and consultants or concessionaire agreements aremore common as private management is becoming preferred to thatof public control. Although industry may deliver services moreefficiently, and economic rationalism increasingly dictates that theuser pays, Atkinson (1991) states this exercise can be self-defeatingbecause when charges are applied visitor numbers drop off. This costrecovery approach fails to recognise that without gaining access toinformation the potential visitor/consumer will not know what isavailable. In addition, consultants or concessionaire agreements arerelatively new in Australia and it remains to be seen if this VCmanagement approach is desirable or economically viable, or if it canaddress wider regional considerations, government agency objectives,

38

environmental and cultural sensitivities, or community equity andtheir concerns.

Vander Stoep (1988) considers the expansion of interpretation’s rolewith changing audiences due to global demographic change.Populations are aging, and older adults with discretionary time andmoney are participating in tourism. Visitors today are eager to learnand participate, and planners need to break away from traditionalprograms and techniques to meet these demands. Non-personalinterpretation is becoming increasingly popular to offset resourceconstraints and staff reductions. Moscardo (1989) adds thatinterpretation is also becoming high-tech and there is an increase ofdemonstrations, drama, storytelling, special events and living historyin an effort to meet the expectations of a highly stimulated, computerliterate population. In light of these shifts, planners need to take an‘ethical lead’. They need to include stakeholders, share resources,become more accountable and tackle traditionally hands-offcontroversial issues with confidence. Considering that people areincreasingly taking their information from public culture, it is alsoimportant that planners help visitors discover and understand theintrinsic and authentic qualities of an area’s heritage – its place, past,present and future. This ultimately helps visitors understandthemselves and their own place within the environment.

3.5.4 Community and social capital

Cox (1995:18) defines social capital as ‘the social glue that givescohesion to our society’. She argues that trust and goodwill areneeded to provide supportive places for discussing new ideas,dissident views, debates and criticism. Issues of social capital arisewhen planning VCs, and Pearce et al. (1991:147) consider the socialconsequences of tourism where developments or activities impact ‘onthe lives of those in the community’. Taylor (1995:487) suggests thatcommunities should be involved in decision making to ensure thatplanning ‘becomes a part of the social consciousness of thedestination’. Ballantyne and Uzzell (1999:65) agree, and argue thatstakeholders should be incorporated into VC planning processes toensure the purpose, themes, stories, messages, and techniques of‘presentation are negotiated with, rather than imposed upon, thecommunity’. Ballantyne et al. (1998:15) add that although interpretive

39

decision making is ‘currently based mostly on internal information’,such as site staff and experts, other groups should be included,particularly the tourists themselves. McArthur and Hall (1993:241)concur, and suggest that conservation does not necessarily lie in thephysical resource itself ‘but in the interaction of people and theresource’. Thus, it is members of the community and visitors whoinherently own the natural and cultural heritage interpreted. As aresult, VCs must consider the changing and dynamic views of thesegroups, as well as the needs of day-to-day managers. Consequently, ifVCs are to be sustainable, the local community and visitors areimportant players in the planning and operation of these facilities.

Murphy (1985:151) suggests that community involvement in tourismplanning can result in a shared vision and ‘that by focusing on thecommunity’s heritage and culture in the development of the tourismproduct destination distinctiveness can be created’. In addition,community members can help elucidate issues when incrementalmanagement alterations lead to a loss of meaning or whenmanagement is in conflict with stakeholders (Saunders 1993).Community involvement is also beneficial when VCs are planned togenerate economic development in declining or undeveloped areas,or when sensitive environmental or social issues are presented(Ballantyne and Uzzell 1999). In addition, community participationand the recognition of an area’s social capital by agencies, helps toachieve sustainable tourism and a sense of place (Trotter 1999).

In Australia, it has been demonstrated that community participationin designing, managing and operating VCs and interpretation can besuccessful, although these groups are often unacknowledged or notconsulted. Uluru National Park provides an example of communityparticipation and the park is successfully administered by a Board ofManagement (including the traditional Indigenous owners,government officials and scientists) to ensure that tourism activitiesare sustainable and culturally viable (Wells 1993). In addition,Flanagan (1996) recalls the conflict confronting the design teamduring the construction and operation of the SVC, Tasmania.Flanagan (1996:181) sought not to repeat old myths, but to provokeand challenge ‘visitors to rethink all they would normally take forgranted’. In an effort to create connections between the past andpresent, and to bring together juxtapositions in ideology, the design

40

team worked collaboratively with local European and Aboriginalcommunities to successfully tackle the controversial issues ofTasmania’s south west head-on. Flanagan states that people’s storieswere presented in an ‘authentic’, honourable and liberating way, anddespite the Tasmanian government’s resistance to the Centre’sopening as its contents was considered subversive, it has become anattraction in its own right. Thus, if new ideas and concepts are to besuccessfully presented in VCs, these facilities need to foster trust andsupport for local community members and visitors. These argumentspropose that active public participation ensures that interpretation isnot planned in isolation from the people who own it or those whocome to experience it. In addition, public participation helps topresent an ‘authentic’, in-depth and layered interpretive experience –where local residents gain a sense of pride and respect, and touristsgain a deeper appreciation for the area’s uniqueness. However,difficulties arise when deciding on which community vision to present,or when defining authentic interpretation, as these are subjectiveterms that have different meanings and outcomes depending on theperspective taken. Consequently, care should be taken when pushingforward any one community vision or authentic view.

3.5.5 Cultural issues

Ballantyne and Uzzell (1999:63) explain the dilemma that plannersface when interpreting Australia’s culture, because it is ‘difficult tofind commonalities on a national scale’ as our heritage is complicatedby the policy of multiculturalism. In addition Pearce (1991) identifiestwo areas of concern in planning cross-cultural aspects of VCs,particularly indigenous groups and providing access for visitors fromother cultures. When interpreting indigenous culture, Ballantyne(1995) considers the problem of interpreting controversial issues, forexample Aboriginal peoples’ cultural history. Ballantyne (1995:16)suggests using a ‘hot interpretation approach’ where Aboriginalpeoples’ culture/heritage is reflected as an ‘ongoing evolving entity’.Hot interpretation, suggests Uzzell and Ballantyne (1998:154),‘appreciates the need for and injects an affective component into itssubject matter’ when presenting issues that involve personal values,beliefs and memories. That is, it accepts that an individual’s feelings,emotional instincts and memories play an important decision makingrole, and interpretation that has the potential to arouse that

41

emotional response should be presented ‘authentically’ to recogniseand reflect controversial issues. Uzzell and Ballantyne (1998) arguethat a hot interpretation adequately conveys meaning, and can beused pro-actively and politically to foster community development.For example, the interaction between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalpeople during their initial contact and subsequent Europeansettlement (or conquest depending upon your view) should bedepicted to foster cultural pride and promote reconciliation byallowing different groups to ‘acknowledge and appreciate theinterconnectedness of their history’ (Ballantyne 1995:16; James1999). However, Ballantyne and Uzzell (1993) point out, in theirdescription of the problems and successes encountered by thoseinterpreting apartheid in District Six Cape Town, that reconciliationshould not allow one group to interpret the history of another ascultural appropriation results in conflict. They stress that ifreconciliation is to be fostered all groups must work together. Byencouraging community collaboration, interpretation not only fulfilsthe aspirations of communities or one cultural group, it also facilitateshistorical truth, alternative futures and social, economic, political andcultural good.

James (1999) states that interpretation should not only be authentic,but it should be undertaken by indigenous people to ensure they ownwhat it represents. For example, Bates (1992) presents an Aboriginalcommunities perspective and he recalls the problems arising at theAustralian Mootwingee National Park Cultural Centre, when theNational PWS failed to consult with indigenous people. This centrewas inappropriately sited 400 m from the area’s main engraving site,and the consultant neither interpreted the site adequately nor finishedthe displays. Bates (1992) questions why funding is available tocatalogue and date Indigenous aboriginal culture but not to recordtheir knowledge. He suggests that Indigenous aboriginal landmanagement not only ensures that agencies consider Aboriginalculture first, but it results in providing spiritually sensitiveinterpretation that is effective and resource efficient. Thus, invitingAboriginal communities to design and manage their owninterpretation helps bridge cultural gaps, and fosters reconciliationand cross-cultural understanding. A sensitive, balanced and honestconsultative approach is required when presenting and managingcontroversial experiences.

42

Generally, the literature provides little information to guide thoseseeking to interpret tragic or controversial events, as is exemplified bythe difficulties of interpreting ‘real life’ hot issues at the Port ArthurHistoric Site, Tasmania. Evans (1996:15) recalls the 1996 massacre atPort Arthur, and she states that tourists now visit the site to peruse thearea’s history as well as ‘to see for themselves where the terribleevents actually happened’. In light of this event, interpreters reflectedupon their interpretation and debated if they should include thetragedy in a new VC. Evans examines how much time needs to elapsebetween a tragic event and its interpretation, given that thetraditional aims of interpretation includes provocation and thestimulation of emotions. This author asks many questions andprovides few answers. However, Evans suggests that real life tragicinterpretation either waits for a new generation, or be non-obtrusive,non-sensational, empathetic and respectful of those directly effected.

3.6 Interpretation as a Planning Strategy

The literature identifies interpretation as an effective and desirablemanagement tool that can play a critical role in achievingsustainability (Moscardo 1999; Moscardo et al. 1998; Hall andMcArthur 1998; Beckmann 1987, 1988; Veverka 1997; Christensen1990). However, sustainability is a complex issue and debate exists asto whether VCs should be environmentally, socially, culturally,spiritually or economically sustainable. Today, interpretation is beingincreasingly aligned with cost recovery imperatives and VC economicviability is becoming as, or more, important than social and culturalcapital. For example, Woods and Moscardo (1996) suggest the use ofinnovative and appropriate interpretation within centres not onlyhelps manage tourism impact in remote, environmentally sensitiveand tourist areas – it’s good business. This is because when values,issues, stories and messages are imparted successfully to the visitor,their appreciation of an area and tourist experience is enhanced. Thisoutcome can help foster environmental conservation, respect for localpeople, tourists as ambassadors, word of mouth referral andpotentially more tourists. For example, in their study of the SkyrailRainforest Cableway in Cairns, Woods and Moscardo (1996b:111)identify that overall; ‘interpretation does influence satisfaction’. Theyfound that tourists who went on an interpretive walk, went into theVC and/or talked to a ranger were more satisfied than those who did

43

not. Considering Skyrail is a commercial ecotourism venture,interpretation makes good economic sense as it encourages satisfiedvisitors. In this example, tourism has a positive impact on the VCbecause large numbers of mainstream tourists are able to access therainforest and learn about the environment. However, despite thebenefits tourism and VCs provide each other, planners should ensurethat these facilities not only contribute to an operation’s revenue base,but also to an area’s environmental, social, cultural and spiritualsustainability.

Evans (2000:10) suggests that interpretation is ‘value-adding to thatobject or place’ and hence it is a product or service. Given thatinterpretation is either funded by public money or industry, it shouldbe made accountable by setting transparent and achievableobjectives. However, Hill (1992:38) points out that interpretiveplanning is often ad hoc or not conducted systematically. Ballantyneand Uzzell (1999) and Dutton (1991) agree, and they support thedevelopment of relevant objectives, processes and guidelines, arecognisable interpretive discipline, management training ininterpretation, and dispelling the ‘soft area myth’. These authors pointout that interpretation was viewed as the poor cousin ofenvironmental education, and they suggest the discipline be valuedand respected as an important profession, and a non-formaleducation strategy. Today, interpretive standards, and the interpreter’sskills and professionalism have improved, and interpretation isincreasingly seen as environmental education’s partner. As such, it hasthe potential to take an environmental lead, to present new conceptsin challenging ways and foster global citizenship. However, effectiveinterpretation can be delivered by any skilled communicatorregardless of professional standing and thus, balance needs to befound between interpretive professionalism and the intrinsic ability of‘uneducated’ interpreters.

Another interpretive limitation as an important educational, cultural,political, and intellectual experience is that interpretation is rarelyintegrated into an overall plan and linkages that do exist may beinadequate, inappropriate or indistinguishable from other activities. Toovercome these difficulties, members of the Scottish Tourism Initiativeundertook a three-year project to develop the Highland InterpretiveStrategy (Carter 1997). This strategy recommends developing

44

strategic plans at the regional level with clear aims and objectives,detailed plans at the area or local level to identify work programs, andsite specific plans for specific places. The strategy suggestsconsidering:

• who the visitors are and why do interpreters want to communicatewith them;

• what to communicate and what are the site values;

• what other interpretation is occurring; and

• where and how communication is to be achieved?

According to Evans (2000), these guidelines provide a framework toassess interpretation, why it is being proposed and whether thethemes suggested are appropriate and easily understood. In addition,the guidelines help determine who the audience is, what they need toknow, what activities they may undertake, how interpretationcomplements other existing interpretation, the development ofappropriate media components, evaluation and where necessary,display alteration. Consequently, interpretation is about balancingdifferent issues and Figure 3.3 details the interpretive planning processand its potential feedback loop as identified by the Scottish TourismInitiative. Although this process includes most planning elements,community consultation and participation is absent in the structure.

45

Figure 3.3 Major issues pertaining to the interpretive planningprocess.

46

Why are you doing this?

Your aims may be to do with:

• Increasing understanding

• Managing visitors

• Managing a site

• Improving the economy

How will you do it?

• Choice of media

• Location and timing of media

• Allocation of different themes to different places

• Interpretive objectives

• Style

How will it be managed?

• Staffing • Materials

• Skills • Buildings

• Maintenance • Cash

Monitoring and Evaluation

• Is it working?

• Is it achieving your aims?

• How might we improve it?

What will you interpret?

You will need to think about:

• Features which visitors can see

• The unique stories your placehas to tell

• Places to which you mustcontrol access

• What is already interpretedelsewhere

• The themes you will use

Who is it for?

You will need to think aboutyour visitors’:

• Characteristics

• Numbers

• Interests and expectations

• Length of stay

Source – Carter 1997:11

In remote or environmentally sensitive areas, conserving resources andproviding enriching visitor experiences are often the ‘largest and mostconspicuous management tasks’, and often, interpretation is a minoractivity in terms of resources despite its core function (VDNRE1999:ix). In addition, society’s shift toward economic rationalism hasimpacted how agencies manage these areas with significantimplications for interpretation (Ballantyne and Uzzell 1999). Inresponse to these changes, the Australian and New ZealandEnvironment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) Working Group onNational Parks and Protected Area Management commissioned areport on best practice interpretation, benchmarking and education(VDNRE 1999; Armstrong and Enting 1999). This report identified thatno Australian government agency had developed an adequate systemto ‘align interpretation and education activities with corporateobjectives’, developed programs methodically, or evaluated criticalsuccess factors (VDNRE 1999:v). As a result, the project developed theModel for Park Interpretation and Education that integrates five keystages with other existing business systems. However, the report’sstructure is complicated, it presents broad concepts rather than clearand practical directions and it fails to recognise the innateenvironmental, cultural, social or spiritual benefits an effective andtruly sustainable VC or interpretive element can bring to an area.

3.7 Integrating Visitor Centre Design with Interpretive Planning

This review has established that Australian VCs provide tourist servicesand they orientate, entertain and educate visitors. Consequently,Moscardo (1991:85) suggests visitors must ‘play a central role inwhatever it is that goes on’ in VCs. As a result, if stakeholders are tomeet visitor needs and provide sustainable and effective VCs, theyneed to consider that visitors are increasingly seeking a green andenvironmentally friendly product. In addition, stakeholders need toact upon the sustainable tourism principles set out internationally bythe IUCN and the International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS), and nationally in the Australian Government’s ecologicallysustainable development (ESD) Working Group Report for Tourismand the National Ecotourism Strategy (ICOMOS 2000; ESD WorkingGroup 1991; Commonwealth Department of Tourism 1994). Inaddition, planners also need to integrate environmental, social,

47

cultural, spiritual and economic sustainability success factors into acentre’s structure if it is to be truly sustainable.

Initially, planners must consider if VCs are the most appropriate toolsto convey information to visitors. If the need is established, plannersmust then understand who the visitors are, what their expectationsmight be, and how they react to the kinds of experiences provided. Inaddition, if VCs are to be sustainable they should also be plannedsystematically, to ensure they are incorporated into a comprehensiveinterpretation strategy that includes clear and practical objectives,processes, guidelines and evaluation. This strategy should alsocomplement other relevant plans to ensure overall VC viability.However, many VC success factors identified in the literature arerhetorical statements rather than practical methods of achievingeffective planning and design criteria. For example, Faggeter (1996),Cheatley (1994) and Beckmann (1990) suggest that effectiveinterpretive VCs:

• have no boundaries (either physically or intellectually);

• are seen in the context of the total visitor experience;

• are inclusive for all and a place to find respect – for each other, forconservation, the environment, the community and for difference;and

• integrate siting and design with the interpretive and informationintent.

However, questions arise including: is possible for VCs to have noboundaries; is it realistic for VCs to be inclusive; what comprises of a totalvisitor experience; and how do you meet a fixed interpretive intent?

Generally, the literature does not adequately address issues of localand indigenous community participation or visitor consultation in theplanning process. It is important that all stakeholders are included inthe design and operation of Australian VCs because if these facilitiesare to be socially meaningful they need to be places where visitorsand the community come to understand themselves. Whenconsidering community participation, planners need to address issues

48

of social capital, heritage ownership and community inclusion. Assuch, planners must identify whose authentic, social, natural orcultural values are being interpreted – are they those of government,agencies, architects, interpreters, local or indigenous communities,tourists or the environment? Thus, if an area’s values are to bepresented ‘authentically’, it is important to define what this termmeans, and recognise and include those who own or use the heritagein the planning process. This approach will help to address relevantsite-specific issues including environmental, cultural and intrinsicheritage, cultural sensitivities, the local community, visitorexpectations and the delivery of conservation messages.

Consequently, effective VCs planning is a complex task and theinclusion of all relevant site-specific issues may not be possible, as theymay be too numerous or bridging the gap between the past andpresent may be too difficult. Thus, VC interpretation needs to openlyrecognise these limitations and admit that the view presented is oneamongst many. In addition, VCs also need to reflect the values of thetime or alternatively, they ought to acknowledge that a snapshotapproach has been taken. Agencies, communities and VCs can alsolook to the future to introduce debate on alternative outcomes tocurrent issues. As such, interpretation should be presented in anhonest, entertaining, stimulating and challenging way that encouragesthe visitor to take a critical interest in the information presented.

Ultimately, Australian VC planning should address management,community and visitor needs, and take visitors beyond anunderstanding of the place but towards a sense of ‘taking care’. It isimportant that visitors are aware of their impact on the host area. Inaddition, priority should be given to meeting local and/or indigenouscommunity needs, because these people must not only live with theVC, but it is their knowledge, customs, enthusiasm and commitmentthat provides depth and substance to a facility to help ensure itssustainability. Given these factors, Australian VCs have the potentialto reveal an area’s beauty and intricacies and this foundation mayprovide a catalyst for the ultimate goal – the visitor as anenvironmental steward.

49

3.8 Interpretation and Learning

3.8.1 Informal learning environments

Like parks, forests, zoos, museums and galleries, interpretive VCs areplaces of informal learning (Evans 1999, Ham and Krumpe 1996;Serrell 1996). This type of learning communicates ideas and conceptsby using different educational media including site-basedinterpretation. Informal education has evolved to distinguish betweenformal school based audiences and other audiences found outside theschool system. Key elements of the informal learning environment aredetailed in Table 3.2 and in this setting, according to Griffin (1999),Ham and Krumpe (1996), Screven (1996), and Ham (1992),individuals learn differently because people freely choose whether toattend, how long they will stay, or whether to pay attention to, andinvolve themselves in, learning. This theory suggests that informallearning depend on visitors giving attention voluntarily, and differentapproaches to planning and delivering interpretive information isrequired than those employed in school settings. However, it must benoted that today, many classroom settings incorporate characteristicsof the informal learning environment.

Table 3.2 Characteristics of informal and formal learningenvironments.

INFORMAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FORMAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT(VISITOR CENTRES) (SCHOOL SETTINGS)

Voluntary Compulsory

Unstructured Structured

Unsequenced Sequenced

Learner-centred Teacher-centred

Contextually relevant Relevance unclear

Heterogeneous grouping Homogeneous groupings

Collaborative Individual

Non-competitive Competitive

Open-ended Closed

Non-curriculum based Curriculum-based

Unintended outcomes recognised Unintended outcomes disregarded

Non-assessed Assessed

50

Source - Griffin 1999:177

Christensen (1994) suggests that visitors have a favourite way (orlearning modality) of receiving information (Table 3.3). Christensencategorises these learning domains as auditory, visual, kinaestheticand symbolic/abstract modalities, and he recommends that elementsfrom each modality be included in an exhibit to ensure it appeals to awide audience and provides choice. Interestingly, smell is not includedin this list.

Table 3.3 Incorporating learning modality into interpretivedesign.

MODALITY TECHNIQUE INTERPRETIVE ELEMENTS

Auditory Modality Speech, music and Those elements that foster a welcomingsong that may include environment.computer generated • Interpretive talksmaterial . • Sounds to create mood or recall emotion

• Sound effects that connect people with concepts

• Music introduces, emphasises or repeatsconcepts

Visual Modality Pictures, props, The audience needs to understand the drawings, films/video, visual image.and graphics • Display panels

• Documentaries• Photographs, slides, paintings, posters,

sketches

Kinaesthetic Dance, theatrics, Elements that allow people to participateModality gesture, touch, and in physical action.

movement • Guided tours• Plays• Interactive videos• Touch tables• Children’s corner or interpretation/activities• Reflective spaces in which to contemplate

Symbolic or Reading, writing and Anything that allows people to read and Abstract Modality arithmetic analyse.

• Brochures and handouts• Maps, signs and plans• Text displays• Poems and readings

Adapted from - Christensen 1994

51

This is important because if VCs provide interpretation to visitors intheir preferred modality, they are more likely to absorb messages moreeasily. Serrell (1996) agrees, and suggests that modalities are relatedto learning styles. She presents the work by McCarthy (1987 in Serrell1996) who identified the following four learners and interpretivelearning styles:

• Imaginative learners – social interaction, listening and sharingencourages learning.

• Analytical learners – these people who prefer facts andsequential ideas.

• Common-sense learners – learning is through discovery and thetesting of theories.

• Experimental learners – these people learn by imaginative trialand error.

McCarthy’s suggests that a person’s genetic make-up andenvironmental stimuli influence learning style. This work directlyapplies to interpretive VCs as these facilities can accommodatevisitors’ different learning styles into exhibitions by providing varietyand visitor choice. Serrell (1996) suggests that interpretive differencecan be developed through experiences that are sequenced orunsequenced; pace-controlled or not controlled; peer group orauthority led; concrete or abstract; participatory or observational; andverbal or nonverbal. The approach and the degree to which exhibitsembody one design form should depend on the information beingcommunicated and what experiences the VC aims to deliver.

3.8.2 Constructivist visitor centres

Ballantyne and Uzzell (1999:66) draw on constructivist theory toexplain that when learners take a constructive approach they areactively involved in learning situations and construct meaningaccordingly. This definition was developed in environmental learningand museum settings, and in these arenas the meaning is similar.According to Klein and Merritt (1994), environmental constructivismis knowledge actively constructed by the subject that results in

52

meaningful learning where ideas are integrated into existingstructures of knowledge. Robertson (1994) agrees, and also stressesthat conceptual knowledge is not passively received from theenvironment, nor does it occur in a social, political or historicalvacuum. The constructivist museum also acknowledges thatknowledge is created in the learner’s mind and in this setting, exhibitsallow visitors to draw their own conclusions (Ballantyne and Uzzell1999; Screven 1996; Hein 1995). This view supports the work of Lee(1998), Uzzell and Ballantyne (1998) and Meredith et al. (1995), andas such, the affective learning domain must be an important learningmechanism in constructivist museums. The constructivist approachimplies that the VC’s exhibition or the experience itself is extended toinclude visitors who interpret, understand and impose their ownmeanings on the exhibits.

3.8.3 Mindful visitors

The Countryside Commission’s (1978) formative study of 17 BritishVCs, found the variables contributing to effective interpretation werethe interpretive theme, floor plan, media used, and overallatmosphere. This study found that there was not necessarily a positivecorrelation between enjoyment and learning. Given that learning ishard work and influenced by social interactions, learning may beperceived as satisfying but it may not be enjoyable. Overall, theliterature identifies that interpretation with a capacity to impartinformation generally incorporates a number of key principles. Inparticular, Moscardo (1996a; 1998; 1999), Woods (1997), Serrell(1996), Christensen (1994) and Ham (1992), suggest that effectiveinterpretation should include the following elements:

• respectful atmosphere;

• personal connections (particularly at the beginning of theexperience);

• interpretation that challenges and encourages emotions (to helprecall);

• dynamic, organised and orientated exhibits that positionedeffectively;

53

• a good story concentrating on clear content;

• control through interaction or direct interpretive participation;

• variety, including multi-sensory and extreme physical exhibits, tocapture audiences;

• interpretation that is novel, unexpected or surprising;

• questions to create conflict or ambiguity; and

• plan for alternative audiences.

Moscardo and Pearce (1986) were the first to introduce to tourismresearch the concept of visitor mindfulness and the effect this statehas on learning outcomes in informal educational environments. Theysuggest that mindfulness is the active mental state comprising ofinformation recall, subjective knowledge, and wanting moreinformation about the topic. Their premise has been derived partlyfrom the work of Langer et al. in 1978, who first presented the basicargument that in any given situation visitors can be either mindful ormindless (lacking awareness). Langer et al. (1989:140) has definedmindlessness as the ‘single-minded reliance on information withoutthe active awareness of alternative perspectives or alternative uses towhich the information can be put’. Moscardo (1988; 1996a; 1998;1999) confers and states that mindfulness is positively related tovisitor enjoyment, increased learning and overall VC satisfaction.Moscardo’s Mindfulness Model for Communicating with Visitors isconsidered an important interpretive VC design element and sheidentifies two factors influencing mindfulness at built heritage sites:setting factors and visitor factors (Figure 3.4). Setting factors includeexhibits, displays tours, signs, maps and brochures. Visitor factorsinclude place familiarity, cognitive orientation, visit motivation andcompanions. When these factors are combined they encouragemindful visitors who are more likely to learn and enjoy their visit. Inaddition, visitors are often more appreciative, aware of theconsequences of their behaviour, and interested in discovering moreabout a place or topic. Woods (1997) agrees, and points out thatwhen interpretive design does not follow mindfulness principles, itseffectiveness is compromised.

54

Figure 3.4 Mindfulness model for communicating withvisitors.

However, care should be taken when applying mindfulness principlesto all interpretive settings. For example, Korn’s (1988) study of self-guiding brochures does not support the existing views held bymuseum educators and evaluators, in believing that question use inexhibit labels and texts attracts and motivates visitors to learn ininformal settings. In addition, Korn argues that cased museum objectsaccompanied by labels are inherently different from objects integratedinto environmental settings, and in these locations there is often nophysical relationship between labels in self-guiding brochures andobjects in the surrounding area. This study can be extended tointerpretive VCs, as exhibits or signs within the facility may notnecessarily relate to the local area, nor will they automaticallyencourage visitors to apply the information to the environment. Forexample, Faggetter (1996:19) recalls that the exceptional Rainforest

55

COMMUNICATION FACTORS VISITOR FACTORS COGNITIVE STATE ORGANISATION CONSEQUENCESOF CONTENT

1. Variety/Change2. Uses multisensory media3. Novelty/Conflict/Surprise4. Use of questions5. Visitor control/Interactive

exhibits6. Connections to visitors7. Good physical orientation

1. High interest in content2. Low levels of fatigue

Clearstructurematched towhat visitorsknow

1. More learning2. High satisfaction3. Greater

understanding

MINDFUL

1. Low interest in content2. High levels of fatigue

Poor structurenot matchedto whatvisitors know

1. Little learning2. Low satisfaction3. Little

understanding

MINDLESS

1. Repetition2. Unisensory media3. Traditional exhibits4. No control/Interaction5. Static exhibits6. No attempt to connect

to/challenge visitors7. Poor physical orientation

Source – Moscardo 1996a

Walk at Maits Rest in the Otway National Park is ‘betrayed by blandand poorly designed generic rainforest signage imposed from afar,and only tenuously related to the specifics of the site’.

3.8.4 Visitor centre fatigue

Moscardo (1996a) refers mainly to studies conducted in museums toargue that effective orientation and carefully designed flow patternscan reduce museum fatigue and encourage mindfulness. Shesuggests that if visitors are oriented and can easily find their wayaround a site, then effectiveness will be enhanced because a person’senergy can be directed toward the interpretation. For example,Moscardo (1986 in Pearce 1988) identifies that visitors in Australiagenerally turned to the left to examine displays. Given thisphenomenon, Pearce (1988) suggests that a compulsoryanticlockwise exhibit order not only frustrates visitors, it reduces theirorientation and results in difficulty for the reader. However, de VriesRobbé (1980) offers an alternative view in his study on VC movementpatterns at the Queen Elizabeth Country Park Visitor Centre,Hampshire. Robbé found that although it seemed natural to design aclockwise circuit, as reading in our culture is from left to right, thephysical and thematic layout encouraged visitors to do the reverse.Consequently, the literature recognises that visitor orientation, flowpatterns within VCs and the display layout are important elementsthat influence learning. However, optimising these factors maydepend upon site-specific considerations. Consequently, learning ininformal learning environments is complex and multi-faceted, and thechallenge for interpreters is to design VCs where people feelcomfortable, included, stimulated, educated, enriched, informed andextended. According to Lee (1998), the aim of VCs is not only topersuasively communicate with visitors but also to change theirattitudes. He identifies that attitudinal change is usually influenced bythe perceived credibility of the message; the clarity, comprehensionand argument of the message itself; the media used for transmission;and visitor characteristics.

56

3.9 Designing Effective Interpretation

3.9.1 Providing variety

Providing variety is important to attract visitor attention andencourage learning in interpretive VCs. However, providing variety isa complex issue not easily explained and a number of conflictingviews as to what, when and how to provide variety in terms ofmodality (Table 3.3) are presented in the literature. For example, someresearch in museums and science centres indicates that the less novel(or gimmicky) the learning environment, the greater the studentlearning. Anderson and Lucas’ (1997) informal education study inscience museums generally supports this view. This study assessedexhibit novelty, its effect on the cognitive learning in year eightstudents, and the links between the exhibits and student learningrecall. They found that gender did not influence learning and that themost frequently recalled exhibits shared a combination of largephysical size, prominence in the gallery, and diversity of the sensorymodes employed. However, these authors found that high degrees ofnovelty were likely to interfere with learning, although learning andeven recall was unlikely to eventuate if an exhibit was initially unableto attract students.

Moscardo (1988) considers the issue differently, and states thatmindfulness is positively related to how impressive the exhibit. In herstudy of visitor attention in Scottish Forestry Commission Centres,Moscardo found a relationship between mindfulness and exhibitcomplexity and she proposes that the structure underlying theorganisation of the interpretation and/or exhibits, when combinedwith novelty, surprise or conflict induces mindfulness and enhanceslearning. This study found that moderate levels of complexityencouraged mindfulness and too little information discouragedmindfulness because visitors dealt with situations routinely. Incontrast, Moscardo argues that too much novelty, conflict orinformation in a setting compromises mindfulness as a visitor’sinformation processing will be directed towards coping with sensoryoverload. Peart and Kool (1988:126) agree that too much noveltyreduces learning, however, in their study on dioramas at the BritishColumbia Provincial Museum, they found that these exhibits were not

57

necessarily the best vehicle for communicating ideas. Althoughdioramas were certainly impressive, their educative capacity (and byimplication mindfulness) were limited and, in contrast, small exhibitswhose message could be gleaned quickly appeared more effective.Thus, these authors generally concur with Anderson and Lucas (1997)and recommend that the inclusion of dioramas as a main featureshould be used carefully and cautiously.

Moscardo (1991) builds on these earlier studies and suggests thatvisitors simply wish to experience anything new, and novelty –regardless of learning – enhances experience. Pearce (1988) agreesthat visitors seek new experiences, but states that they are alsointerested in meeting new people and learning through culturalexchange. However, Moscardo (1996b:390) points out that ‘there islittle research evidence to demonstrate that guided tours or contactwith interpretive staff’ is effective in increasing visitor learning and sheconcludes this is only believed to be the case. Despite the lack ofresearch into the benefits of staff contact with visitors, Moscardo(1998) points out that positive responses have been recorded forDiscovery Corners which offers contact with interpretive staff and theopportunity for interaction with objects that would otherwise beneglected. It can be argued that a visitor’s learning and overallexperience is enhanced when VCs offer guided tours or contact withstaff. In addition, personal contact with visitors may help to lessen VCfatigue by reducing the amount of information visitors’ need toprocess. This in turn provides visitors more control.

3.9.2 Attracting and holding power

Shettel (1976) proposes that exhibits must have attracting, holdingand teaching power if they are to be effective. Thus, information ordisplays presented in VCs will only be effective if they first attractsvisitors. The literature agrees with Shettel’s findings and many studieshave reported poor visitor attention to exhibits. For example,Moscardo (1998) presents the average time spent by visitors lookingat paintings in art galleries, as it was initially described by Robinson’senduring findings in 1928. Robinson found that visitor attention wasthe greatest during the first half of their visit with peak attentionoccurring when they observed the first 20-40% of the displays. Thispattern has been widely observed in museums and visitors tend to

58

allocate their attention consistently. In addition, Falk (1991) identifiesthat visitors allocate 15-20% of their attention to their own socialgrouping and another 3-8% to other people. Meredith et al.(1995:29) concur, and they state that visitors may allocate attentionto exhibits and people simultaneously, and that such ‘interaction maygreatly influence the quality of their overall experience’. In addition,Meredith et al. found that dynamic exhibits that require the visitor toact on them in some way, elicit increased levels of verbal interaction.Thus, a display’s attracting and holding power is influenced by visitorinterest and it competes with the social interactions people havewhilst in the facility. Falk et al. (1985) conclude that visitors spend thefirst few minutes orienting themselves, the next half-hour observingexhibits and the last 15-30 minutes ‘cruising’ through the museumand stopping occasionally to look more closely at exhibits. Thus,designers need to provide increased informal sensory modalities toattract interest, and structure VC interpretation to maximise socialinteractions in meaningful ways. For example, social interactions canbe improved by staff and volunteers providing friendly service, or byincluding interactive learning experiences that foster parents andchildren to work together.

3.9.3 Telling a good and story

Tilden’s fourth principal states that ‘interpretation should aim topresent a whole rather than a part’ (Tilden 1977:9). Thus, telling astory with themes provides a single focus or core item to which allother information can be linked. In addition, when interpretation hasa theme and it is related to a key idea or central message – ‘itbecomes easier to follow and more meaningful to people’ (Ham1992:33). This is because people tend to recall plot structures and themain ideas, but they often forget facts and figures. Ham and Krumpe(1996:18) agree, and state that ‘a well-articulated theme expresses abelief, whether it be a behaviour, event, person or object’ and that‘communication that develops a theme advocates a belief’. Theyconclude that interpretive themes that convincingly advocatebehavioural, normative and control beliefs are more likely to beeffective in achieving desired outcomes than those merely presentingarbitrary facts of presumed visitor interest. Thus, thematic approachesresult in more interesting and memorable presentations, asinterpreters can identify what information to include.

59

Ham and Krumpe (1996) reminds us that people learn differently andaudiences need themes to be presently in different ways to ensurethat everyone comprehends the main message. In addition, visitorsneed to learn themes quickly before they loose their attention or leavethe site. Oral or written presentations can be used in conjunction withexhibits, dioramas and interactive displays. However, the approachtaken when creating each presentation differs. For example,according to Ham (1992), an oral presentation is linear and controlledby the interpreter as the theme is revealed at the beginning andreinforced at the end. Alternatively, exhibits and written displays arenonlinear as audiences will not read the entire exhibit and nor willthey read the information in the same order. Ham identifies acommon failure of exhibits and written displays. He suggests that toomuch information is provided as a linear, sequential presentation ofideas and, when designing themes that are unfamiliar to visitors, themain ideas need to be kept to a manageable number. He refers toMiller’s 1956 study that presented the principal of The MagicalNumber Seven, Plus or Minus Two. This principal suggests that onaverage, humans are capable of making sense of only seven plus orminus two separate and new ideas at a time. Given this, Ham (1992)identifies that since some people can only process five new ideas, theactual number of main points should be five or fewer. In addition, alimited number of main ideas make interpretation more interesting,understandable and memorable. Therefore, it is important thatexhibits are designed nonlinearly where the main heading isconspicuous, and the theme titles and levels are clearly defined toensure that the central ideas of the exhibit are conveyed.

The literature generally supports Ham and Krumpe’s views regardingeffective interpretive theme presentation. For example, an early studyof four American VCs by Washburne and Wagar in 1972, found amarked preference for dynamic, animated and changingpresentations as well as a particular interest in violent subject matter.Pearce (1988) recounts a second study of American VCs by Zube,Crystal and Palmer in 1978, where it was concluded that centres witha historic theme are generally more satisfying than those only with anenvironmental or recreational theme. This was also found in theCountryside Commission (1978) study of British VCs and in the laterstudy by de Vries Robbé (1980) at the Queen Elizabeth Country ParkVisitor Centre, Hampshire. Finally, Lee (1998) concurs with Negra and

60

Manning (1997), and suggests that environmental themes may bemore memorable if they are given immediacy. However, Uzzell andBallantyne (1998) criticise framing activities and experiences aroundstories, themes and messages, as this approach often fails to considera visitor’s previous experience, and does not help visitors extend theirlearning to the world outside. Thus, VC interpretation should considera visitor’s knowledge, where issues are used as a springboard toengage visitors in considering attitudes, values and behaviour that isnot purely site specific. Absher (1997) agrees, and suggests thatexhibits presented chronologically or in a single orderly manner areoutdated and interpretation must move outside this constrained,theme-focused model to communicate with more diverse audiencesin more diverse ways and settings. Unfortunately, Absher does notprovide an outline of how this might be achieved.

3.9.4 Exhibits

Exhibits communicate themes to visitors, and although the literaturepresents a number of ideas for developing effective displays, there areno definitive rules and only guidelines are presented. For example,Ham (1992) suggests that exhibits do not need to be expensive to beeffective and although an expensive exhibit may be more attractiveand durable, it does not necessarily communicate more information.Thus, communication is a matter of conceptual design rather thanbeing only artistically based, and giving meaning and context to theinterpretation is at least as important. Moscardo (1993; 1996a) andScreven (1996) and Patterson and Bitgood (1988) agree, and theyidentify a number of principles that influence visitor behaviour (Table3.5). These authors suggest that a display’s condition can be classifiedinto exhibit, visitor and architectural factors that together, theyinfluence behaviour and the display’s success.

61

Table 3.5 Principles of visitor behaviour.

VC FACTOR EXHIBIT CONDITION VISITOR BEHAVIOUR

Exhibit/Object Size Larger size results in longer viewing Factors times and recall.

Motion Moving elements result in better visitor attention.

Aesthetic factors Unity, emphasis, balance, patterns and colours relate to focus.

Novelty/rarity There is an inherent attraction in novel/rare things.

Sensory factors Multi-sensory exhibits produce longer viewing times.

Interactive factors Interactive exhibits, displays andinformation encourage attracting andholding power.

Visitor Factors Special interests Visitors are more likely to select interest areas.

Visitor participation Associated with better attracting and holding power.

Object satiation or fatigue Repetition is related to decreased attracting and holding power.

Demographic factors Age, educational level and group composition.

Other psychological factors Perception of attractive exhibits, displaysand information, crowding and visitorcomfort. Exits attract visitors.

Architectural Exhibit visibility Barriers to visibility reduce viewing time.Factors Exhibit proximity The closer visitors get the longer they stay.

Realism Naturalistic exhibits provide memorable experiences.

Sensory competition Exhibit stimuli compete for visitor attention.

Adapted from - Moscardo 1993; 1996a; Screven 1996; Ham 1992; Patterson and Bitgood 1988

Ham (1992) indicates that viewers (often less than one per cent) onlyread a fraction of even an expensive exhibit’s text, and of those thatdo, most are knowledgeable in the topic presented. Overall,audiences spent about one third of the time that was actuallynecessary reading exhibits. According to Neal (1976) in her advice tothose writing texts for museum exhibits, most adults read about 250-300 words/minute and the maximum average attention span is

62

approximately 45 seconds. The literature widely accepts this finding,and early research by Melton (1972) found that visitors pay littleattention to displays and looked at them for approximately eightseconds. Thus, if visitors scan exhibits, interpreters must ask whetheraudiences grasp the messages presented or if they can remember anymore than a few facts and images. It is argued that exhibits receivelittle more than a fleeting glance and given this, they must be concise,easy to read and present fewer than 250 words. In addition, Ham(1992) suggests designing exhibits on a number of levels that allowvisitors to absorb as much of the exhibit as they like, and interpretersshould follow the Fazio and Gilbert’s ‘A.B.C.s’ when designingdisplays. As such, exhibits should be: attractive and pleasant to lookat; brief and simple; and clearly organised so the theme can berecognised and understood quickly. Thus, it is important interpretersconsider how the VC and each display impacts on visitors.

3.10 Integrating Interpretive Design with Evaluation

Interpretive VCs provide an informal environment designed to allowvisitors to stop where and when they wish, to allow their interests todrive their learning, and to share what interests them. This results ineach visitor’s learning being complex and multi-faceted. Thus, thechallenge for interpreters is to design VC spaces where visitors feelcomfortable and where they are able to make easy connections withtheir own experience and emotions. In summary, the followingconclusions emerge in this review from both museum and VC studies:

• more needs to be known about learning in informal settings;

• people (visitors, staff and residents) are important to the VC’ssustainability;

• visitors are eager learners, but they do not want to spend time oreffort absorbing information;

• a visitor’s personal motivations and goals, and the socialinteractions they have, are important interrelated variables thatimpact learning and site experience;

• mindful visitors are more likely to learn and enjoy their visit;

63

• visitors pay little attention or none at all to exhibits;

• interpretation does not need to be expensive;

• interpretive meaning and context is important;

• interactive exhibits are more successful in attracting and holdingattention; and

• visitors do not appear to learn or remember a great deal from theirvisits.

Given that learning is hard work and visitors do not appear to absorbinformation easily, interpretation needs to focus on visitor needs.Successful interpretation communicates quickly; it is likely to have a‘big idea’, theme or story; and it ‘will clarify, limit, and focus thenature and scope of an exhibition and provide a well-defined goalagainst which to rate its success’ (Serrell 1996:1). This approachencourages visitors to be mindful and to make comparisons betweenthe familiar and the new. Ultimately, interpretation should be plannedin the light of a visitor’s previous knowledge, where issues are used asa springboard to engage them. However, little research has beencompleted to assess the factors that attract and hold visitor attentionand given that they are eager to learn, it is important to understandwhy they do not concentrate on exhibits.

Considering the resources required to build VCs and developinterpretation, and the scarcity of research specifically detailing theplanning, design and evaluation of these facilities, it is important toevaluate a centre’s success to ensure it meets the needs of visitors,agencies, the tourism industry and local communities. Not only is itimportant that interpretation be integrated in the initial design of aVC, on-going evaluation of the centre’s operation and exhibits shouldbe undertaken from the beginning of the VC program. Incorporatingevaluation into a VC’s design ensures that they are accountable, andit helps to assess whether a centre’s operation or interpretation meetsmanagement and visitor objectives, and if not, it providesrecommendations and an opportunity to respond to changes. Inaddition, meaningful outcomes of the evaluation process can be

64

incorporated into the design of new centres. As a result, VC planningand design is an integrated process that includes interpretationplanning and design, and on-going evaluation from the start of theprogram.

65

4.1 Visitor Observations

A total of 67 visitor observation checklists were completed at the SVCduring the visitor survey. A total of 2,048 individual observations wererecorded as people moved around the outside the Centre andthrough the information foyer, and 208 observations were recordedas people moved through the display (Appendix B). This researchobserved a conversion rate of 9% for visitors moving from theinformation foyer to the display. This conversion rate generally agreeswith the 10% conversion rate observed in the pilot survey and 12%conversion rate calculated by TREC. It is important to note that visitorsspending more than half an hour at the Centre may have beenrecorded more than once. However, as the aim of the behaviouralmapping component of this study was to identify how visitor used theCentre, the re-counting of individuals does not negatively impact theresults sought.

Visitors utilised the outside areas at the front of the SVC throughouteach day and generally orientated themselves outside the Centrebefore entering the information foyer (Plate 4.1). The researchersnoted that a number of visitors had difficulty ascertaining if theCentre was open, where they should enter the building, or what theCentre offered. In addition, the rear (wharf side) of the Centre wasunder utilised except when visitors used the area to gain access to thetownship or parking.

66

4. STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE RESULTS

Plate 4.1 Obscured entry into the Strahan Visitor Centre.

Source: Fallon 2000

Once inside the information foyer, visitors browsed; looked at touristinformation, souvenirs and maps; or interacted with staff to askquestions, book services or purchase items (Plate 4.2). The foyer wasoften crowded, particularly at peak times and visitors needed toqueue at the information desk for service. After perusing informationor accessing services, visitors then made the decision to pay and seethe display. This decision was generally made once visitors had‘peeked’ around the corner of the display’s entrance to see what wasinside the area.

67

Plate 4.2 Small, dark information foyer.

This interstitial area between the Centre and the local surrounds washighly utilised and an important aspect of the Centre. Visitors walkedthrough this area, stopped and looked at signs or the building, sawthe play – The Ship that Never Was, sat at outside seating, playedcheckers at one of the outdoor settings or interacted with the blockand tackle display (Plate 4.3).

This interstitial area between the Centre and the local surrounds washighly utilised and an important aspect of the Centre. Visitors walkedthrough this area, stopped and looked at signs or the building, sawthe play – The Ship that Never Was, sat at outside seating, playedcheckers at one of the outdoor settings or interacted with the blockand tackle display (Plate 4.3).

Plate 4.3 Interstitial area outside the Strahan Visitor Centre.

68

Source: Fallon 2000

Source: Fallon 2000

The amphitheatre was generally empty. However, 30 minutes prior tothe start and during the first session of the theatrical play at 5:30pm,this area was filled to capacity in excess of 100 people (Plate 4.4).Visitor numbers attending the second session of the play at 8:30pmwere more than halved.

Plate 4.4 The amphitheatre.

For those visitors seeing the display, they generally looked at theexhibits in a sequential manner and overcrowding did not occur dueto the low number of people entering this area. Visitors appearedrelaxed when reading the text panels or looking at exhibits, were ableto amble through the display at their own pace and did not appear tobe fatigued at the end of the experience (Plate 4.5). The researcherobserved that visitors ‘cruising’ through the display quickly squeezedpast those spending more time at each exhibit. In addition, visitorswith young children in strollers tended to leave the equipment at onelocation and carry the infant.

69

Source: Fallon 2000

Plate 4.5 Text panels and rainforest.

Visitors were observed in all areas of the display, over half either reador directly interacted with the exhibits and 12% of visitors werechildren (Figure 4.1). The interactive hydrogenerator exhibit locatedtowards the end of the display was the most utilised and visitors readthe associated text panels, or operated and helped others use theequipment. The next most utilised exhibits in order of preference werethe rainforest and convict exhibits, Aboriginal people, conflict andsuburban bungalow exhibits and pining. More visitors were observedreading convict text panels followed by conflict, then rainforest andAboriginal exhibits. The suburban bungalow offered visitors thegreatest opportunity for interaction with the display and here theystopped, read and touched the exhibit; looked at a video; sat orhelped others. Fewer visitors were observed at the TWWHA,conservationists and economy exhibits.

70

Source: Fallon 2000

Table 4.1 Observations of visitors in the interpretive display.

4.2 Structured Visitor Questionnaire Survey

4.2.1 Visitor Profile

Table 4.2 provides a sociodemographic profile for the total surveysample. The sample comprised a relatively even spread of respondentsacross gender and age categories, although 50% of respondentswere aged between 30 and 49 years of age. The respondents’ agesranged from between 16 to 75 years for females, and 17 to 70 yearsfor males. Other noteworthy features were that 76% of visitors wereAustralians travelling mostly from Victoria, New South Wales andQueensland and 16% of visitors were overseas tourists. This result isgenerally consistent with the breakdown of all visitors to Strahan(Brkic 2001). Interestingly, 68% of visitors to the Centre hadcompleted tertiary qualifications. The Tasmania Visitor Survey 1998/99identifies that 35.6% of visitors to Tasmania are university graduates(Tourism Tasmania 1999b:31).

71

EXHIBIT ELEMENT FREQUENCY

CHILD WALKS LOOKS READS TOUCHES VIDEO SITS HELPS TOTALNO /STOPS

Rainforest/Huon 2 4 4 15 1 24pine walk

Aboriginal culture 4 8 15 23

Convict history 2 22 24

Piners’ history 3 7 9 19

Conservationists/art 1 4 3 4 11 works

Economy exhibits 5 2 7

Conflict/conservation 1 2 2 19 23

Why World Heritage? 3 1 7 5 13

Suburban bungalow 3 1 5 4 2 5 5 1 23

Hydrogenerator 5 4 1 16 4 25

Seating 5 - display 4 1 9 10

Reference library 1 1

Void area 3 4 2 6

Table 4.2 Sociodemographic profiles and travel origin of thetotal sample.

TOTAL SAMPLE (n = 252) VARIABLE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Gender Male 129 51 Female 123 49

Age <20 10 4 (1 respondent declined) 20-29 51 20

30-39 63 25 40-49 63 25 50-59 46 18 >60 18 7

Education completed High school (to year 10) 33 13 (2 declined) Matriculation (to year 12) 30 12

Technical qualification1 16 6 Tertiary qualification2 171 68

Visitor type by origin Total overseas 39 16 UK/England 14 6 North Europe 13 5 USA/Canada 8 3 Other 4 2 Total interstate 191 76

Victoria 66 26 New South Wales 55 22 Queensland 31 12 Western Australia 21 8 South Australia 16 7 Northern Territory 2 1 Total intrastate 22 9

1Trade or TAFE certificate2University Bachelor, Post Graduate or Diploma study

Patterns of local and regional travel are detailed in Table 4.3 andselected cross tabulation results are detailed in Appendix C. Over halfthe respondents were first time visitors to Tasmania (51%) and nineout of every ten people visited the SVC for the first time. Strahan wasseen by most visitors as a short stay holiday destination, usually visitedas part of a State-wide tour. The most common travel parties werecouples (41%), single visitors (28%) or those travelling as part of agroup (10%). Conversely, visitors to Strahan were more likely to becouples (60%), those travelling in a group (33%), single visitors (7%)

72

or visitors travelling with children (14%) (Brkic 2001). Groups sizes tothe SVC generally consisted of between 3-4 people (with thosevisiting the Centre ranging from three to eighteen people), and overtwo-thirds of groups to the Centre travelled with children (Brkic2001). Consequently, the SVC appears to attract a greater proportionof single visitors and those travelling with children, but fewer couplesand groups - than those travelling to Strahan in general.

Table 4.3 Local and regional travel of visitors to the StrahanVisitor Centre.


Visitor type by travel party Single 71 28 Couple 103 41 Adult group (>2 adults) 25 10 Children present 53 21 Mobility problems evident 2 1

Length of stay in Tasmania >7 days 40 16 8-14 days 125 49.5 15-21 days 46 18 > 21 days 19 7.5

Length of stay in Strahan 1 day 94 37.5 2 days 113 45 3 days 33 13 >3 days 10 4

First time visitors To Tasmania 140 56 Overseas 37 15 Interstate 103 41

To Centre 216 86

Main reason for visiting Holiday 246 98 Strahan Other1 4 1.5

Mode of transport Private vehicle 121 48 Rental vehicle 108 42 Coach tour 17 7 Other2 4 2

1Other reason given was for business2Other modes given were motorcycles and bicycles

73

Visitors to the SVC tended to use private transport (48%) then rentalvehicles (42%), whereas those travelling to Strahan tended to userental vehicles (52%) then private transport (36%) (Brkic 2001). Thisresult suggests that visitors travelling to Strahan using rental vehiclesutilised the Centre less than those using private vehicles. Significantly,all visiting groups used private transport. However, adult groups(particularly those with children) utilised private transport to a greatercapacity (19%), as did intrastate (95%) and interstate (50%)travellers. Couples (53%) or those travelling from interstate (45%)and overseas (56%) mainly used rental vehicles. In addition, travellersyounger than 20 years of age tended to arrive by coach. The relianceon private transport declined as the level of education increased. Inexcess of 96% of people visiting the SVC were on holiday and onaverage, respondents stayed in Strahan for two days, over 95% ofvisitors stayed no longer than three days and those staying greaterthan three days tended to be travelling alone (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Length of stay in Strahan of visitors to the StrahanVisitor Centre.

74

4.2.2 Level of Usage

During the survey, two peak visitation periods each day was identified(Figure 4.2). The first peak occurred between 11am and 12 noon. Thesecond peak from 2:30pm until 4:30pm. This peak coincided with thereturn of the half-day Gordon River Cruises and extended through theafternoon when the full-day cruises returned to Strahan.

Figure 4.2 Visitation to the Strahan Visitor Centre.

The visitor survey revealed that a low proportion of visitors enteringthe information foyer paid a fee to go through the display and only20% of all survey respondents saw the display. Visitors paying to seethe display were generally evenly distributed across origin, visitorgroup, sex and age; and 32% of respondents were single people,followed respectively by couples (30%), adult groups with children(28%) and adult groups (10%). Intrastate visitors or groups withchildren appeared more likely to pay to see the display. Reasons givenby visitors for not seeing the display included limited time (64%), notbeing interested (14%), being unaware it was there (14%) or expense(11%) (Figure 4.3). Of those with health or mobility problems, 1% ofrespondents did not access the display and respondents were morelikely to avoid the display if they were less than twenty years of age,visiting as a couple or an overseas tourist.

75

Figure 4.3 Reasons for visitors not paying to see theinterpretive display.

The time visitors spent at the SVC ranged from less than 5 minutes(25%) to over 60 minutes (6%). Most visitors (69%) spent less than15 minutes at the Centre (Figure 4.4). Visitors spent on average 5-15minutes in the information foyer and 15-30 minutes at the Centre ifthey saw the display. Time was a significant factor influencing avisitor’s decision to see the display.

76

Figure 4.4 Time visitors spend at the Strahan Visitor Centre.

It is important to note that some visitors may have spent more time atthe SVC than the results indicate. This is because visitors can enterand leave the Centre as often as they like without charge, and theyare able to access the display on the day they pay their entry fee asoften as they like. However, the results are unlikely to have beengreatly biased by this factor as only 11% of respondents hadpreviously visited the Centre to access information or the displayduring the previous two days and 4% had visited at some time in thepast. In addition, these results do not take into account those visitorsreturning to see the play.

4.2.3 Visitor Information Sources

Table 4.4 provides a summary of how visitors found out about theSVC, their expectations and what they purchased.

77

Table 4.4 Reasons for visiting and visitor exceptions regardingtourist information.


Discovery of Centre Discovered centre on arrival 177 70 Referred by others 45 18 Tourist information 29 11.5 Other1 2 .5

Reason for visiting Find tourist information 118 47 Looking/browsing 68 27 Booking services 26 10 See/enquire about play 24 10 See interpretive display 3 1 Other 13 5

What was missing at Centre Information found 166 66 Browsing only 69 27 Information not found 17 7

Local area information 7 3 Booking services 5 2 Other information 5 2

Visitors purchasing items Did not purchase 180 71 Retail merchandise purchased 72 29

Postcards 28 11 Tickets 25 10 Other 19 8

1Other included Tassie Link Explorer Pass and phonebook

Over two thirds of all respondents (70%) discovered the SVC onarrival to Strahan. Of these visitors, 6% were directed to the Centrefrom signs in Strahan and 18% on the basis of recommendations.These visitors were either referred by commercial operators (13%) orlearned of the Centre through word of mouth (5%). A number ofrespondents indicated they learned of the SVC through touristinformation (11.5%), with 4% of these people specifically indicatingthey either learned of the Centre in the Lonely Planet Guidebook orfrom a map. Most visitors came to the Centre to find information(47%), look and browse (27%) or book services and/or enquire aboutthe play (20%). Generally, visitors found the information they sought(66%). However, one in twenty visitors (5%) identified a lack of localarea information or booking services.

78

Approximately one third of visitors purchased items at the Centre(29%), with postcards and ticket sales being the most popular (21%).Age, education, where visitors travelled from, time spent at theCentre, or time spent in Strahan did not unduly influence their desireto purchase. However, visitors younger than 20 years of age,intrastate travellers or those seeing the display tended to purchasefewer goods. Conversely, couples tended to purchase more items(51%) as opposed to other groups (25%).

4.2.4 Visitor Evaluation of the Strahan Visitor Centre

When asked how satisfied visitors were with the SVC, 86% ofrespondents commented favourably about the Centre and 14%commented negatively. Females tended to be more satisfied thanmales with the SVC and the longer visitors spent at the Centre thelower their dissatisfaction.

When asked about the SVC’s best and worst aspects, visitors weregenerally able to identify more positive attributes than negative ones(Table 4.5). A third of visitors were particularly enthusiastic about thebuilding’s design (33%) and 20% of visitors were impressed with therange of information provided. In addition, visitors commentedpositively on the display (15% - or 76% of all those accessing thisarea), the play (4% - noting that most respondents had yet to see theplay), and the interactive block and tackle and checkers board outsidethe building (2%). Criticisms included staffing deficiencies (10%), lackof local area information (9%), crowding in the information foyer(6%) or issues regarding parking (4%).

79

Table 4.5 Best and worst aspects of the Strahan Visitor Centre.

BEST ASPECTS WORST ASPECTS

VARIABLE PERCENTAGE VARIABLE PERCENTAGE

Architecture/design 33 No comment 51

Range of information 21 Crowding/lack of space 6

Display/aspects of display 15 Unfriendly/impolite staff 6

No comment 11 Lack of local information 5

Location 8 Information layout/clarity 5

Friendly/helpful staff 7 Insufficient staff 4

Unique/interesting/different 6 Lack of Centre promotion 4

Play (The Ship that Never Was) 4 Insufficient parking/parking fees 4

Services (including Internet) 4 Unsure 4

Unsure 3 Insufficient access 3

Souvenirs 2 Insufficient entrance signage 3

Block & tackle 1 Insufficient seating 3

Checkers board 1 Insufficient souvenirs 3

* More than one comment possible for each respondent

Respondents were then asked to rate the SVC’s design, friendliness ofthe staff and the provision of local area information. These ratings arecompared with overall visitor satisfaction in the Centre in Figure 4.5.

80

Figure 4.5 Overall visitor satisfaction with the Strahan VisitorCentre and their rating of the design of the building,friendliness of the staff and provision of local areainformation.

When rating the Centre’s design, 87% of respondents were eithervery satisfied or satisfied, 3% were specifically unsatisfied and 2%were unable to provide a rating. Respondents were more satisfiedwith the Centre’s design than with the friendliness of the staff orprovision of local information. Visitors generally rated the friendlinessof the staff favourably, 68.5% were very satisfied or satisfied, 7.5%were specifically unsatisfied and 17% were unable to provide a rating.When rating the provision of local information, 73.5% of visitors werevery satisfied or satisfied, 5% were specifically unsatisfied and 12%were unable to provide a rating as they had not used the service.

81

4.2.5 The Interpretive Display

The interpretive display at the SVC takes a sequential, historical,chronological and theme based approach (Figure 4.6). The Centreuses conflict to retell the personal values, beliefs and memories of thedesigners and some local residents. The central theme of the displayis ecology. This theme is comprised of eight sub-themes includingTasmanian rainforest, Aboriginal culture, convicts, pining, economy(forestry, mining and tourism), conservationists, conflict and theTWWHA. Themes relevant to Tasmania’s West Coast that are notpresented include maritime history, fishing, mining, coastal ecology,and flora and fauna.

Figure 4.6 Strahan Visitor Centre visitor flow paths.

82

Wide arrows: entry to centreCurved arrow: entry to displayNarrow arrows: display flow

INTERPRETIVE DISPAY

OUTSIDE

FOYER

Source: McArthur and Gardener 1992

The sociodemographic breakdown of those paying to see the displaywas similar to the characteristics identified for all SVC visitors.However, differences included an increased conversion rate of visitorsaccessing the display if they spent more time in Strahan, or travelledfrom intrastate (9% to Centre - 14% to display). Conversely, adecreased conversion rate was noted for couples (41% to Centre -30% to display) and overseas visitors (16% to Centre - 10% todisplay) (Tables 4.2, 4.3).

Visitors generally spent more time at the SVC (15-30 minutes) if theypaid to see the display. Significantly, most visitors felt the display tolda good story (88%) and they considered it to be value for money(92%) (Appendix C). The satisfaction visitors expressed in paying tosee the display appeared to be dependent upon the display’s ability totell a good story.

Comments made by respondents were generally very positive. One inthree respondents described the display as being educational (34%),one in four described it as being great or good (24%), and just under25% of people said it was either thought provoking or made themmore environmentally aware (Table 4.6). In addition, 20% of visitorsprovided an emotional response and said the display made them feelsad (20%) and they either felt sorrow or empathy for those depictedin the stories, or they felt sympathy for the Aboriginal people. Ofthose providing negative comments, 8% of respondents indicated thedisplay did not evoke any particular feelings or change to their views,6% indicated the stories were unbalanced or subjective and 4% feltthat too much information was provided.

Table 4.6 Popularity of words and phases used to describe thedisplay.

VARIABLE FREQUENCY %

Educational 17 34

Great/good/enjoyed it 12 24

Thought provoking 6 12

Environmental awareness 5 10

Interesting 5 10

Sympathy for Aboriginal people 5 10

83

VARIABLE FREQUENCY %

Sorrow/empathy 5 10

No feeling/didn’t change 1 8

Valuable experience 3 6

Subjective/unbalanced 3 6

No comment 3 6

Interactive 2 4

Too much information 2 4 [Note: more than one comment possible for each respondent]

When asked about which sub-themes visitors liked, read or learnedthe most from, 95% of respondents identified the themes most likedand read, and 86% indicated they learned something from theexperience. Visitors liked and read the most about Aboriginal people.Pining was the next most liked and read sub-theme, followed byconservationists.

Visitor observations conducted by the researchers during the surveyperiod confirmed these sub-themes as being very popular (Table 4.1).However, a greater number of visitors were observed viewingrainforest and convict sub-themes, respondents indicated that thesesub-themes were the least liked and read, followed by the TWWHA,economy and conflict sub-themes.

These results may indicate that although visitors stop and look atexhibits, holding and attracting power does not necessarily equate tooverall satisfaction. In terms of knowledge, visitors felt they learnedmost about conservationists, although they also learned aconsiderable amount from the exhibits depicting Aboriginal cultureand piners history equally. Respondents claimed to have learned littlefrom the other themes, particularly the conflict, TWWHA or rainforestthemes. Finally, 6% of respondents did not like the display, 6% didnot read the interpretive text panels and 14% of respondents felt theyhad not learned anything specific.

The interpretive sub-themes visitors enjoyed, read and learned themost about are detailed in Figure 4.7. All visitor groups enjoyed theexhibits depicting Aboriginal culture and piners history. Single peopleand couples tended to enjoy most sub-themes, although single

84

people preferred the piners exhibits (37.5%) and couples preferredthe rainforest vegetation (26.7%). Adult groups enjoyed the exhibitsdepicting Aboriginal culture (80%), followed by the piners exhibits(20%). Those with children tended to enjoy the exhibits detailingAboriginal culture and conservationists equally (29% each). Age orlevel of education did not appear to influence the themes visitorsenjoyed. However, all visitors over 60 years of age looked at theconvict exhibits, 60% particularly enjoyed the piners exhibits, and80% chose not to look at the Aboriginal culture exhibits.

Figure 4.7 The interpretive sub-themes visitors enjoyed, readand learned the most about.

All visitor groups read about Aboriginal people and piners, and singlepeople and couples tended to read most of the displays. Those withchildren also read most of the displays, although they focused moreon the Aboriginal culture and conservationists exhibits (35% equally).Groups were more selective and they either read about the first two

85

PERC

ENTA

GE O

F VI

SITO

RS (n

=50)

Abor

igin

als

Pine

rs

Cons

erva

tioni

sts

Rain

fore

st

Conv

icts

Wor

ld

Herit

age

Area

Econ

omy

Did

not

Conf

lict

sub-themes presented, Aboriginal culture (60%) and piners history(20%), or they did not read the interpretive text. Age did not appearto influence the amount people read. However, respondents belowthe age of 29 years of age tended to read the most about Aboriginalpeople (50%) and visitors across all age groups read about piners andconservationists.

Visitors learned from the interpretive sub-themes. All visitor groupslearned from the Aboriginal culture, piners and conservationistsexhibits, and couples learned from the greatest number of themes.Learning appeared to increase with group size. For example, 5% ofpeople as part of an adult group and one in four single people indicatedhaving learned nothing. Learning also appeared to increase witheducation level and here, 75% of respondents who had completedhigh school learned from the display, and 80% of respondents withmatriculation or technical qualifications and nine in ten people withtertiary qualifications said they learned something. Conversely, learningappeared to decrease with increasing age and all respondents youngerthan 39 years learned from the display, whereas one in fourrespondents over 50 years learned nothing. In addition, respondents ofall ages learned from the piners exhibits; those between 30 and 49years learned most from the conservationist theme, whereas youngerpeople learned from the Aboriginal culture exhibits.

Interactive elements including: rainforest plants and noises; Aboriginalculture, convict and piners audios; a conservation documentary video;and an operational hydrogenerator form part of the display (Table4.7). When asked about these interactives, respondents expressed arange of responses and tended to comment more on the exhibits nearthe display’s entrance. All visitors looked at, interacted with, or heardthe rainforest and nearly two thirds of these respondents enjoyed thiselement (62%). However, visitor responses were not as favourable forthe other interactives.

For visitors seeing the display, 78% heard the audio presented byAboriginal community members but only 23% enjoyed it, and 64%indicated they did not or could not hear it. In particular, 75% of adultgroups were unable to hear this audio. Similarly for the convict audio,of the 74% of those who heard it, 41% enjoyed the audio and 51%did not hear or were unable to hear it. Due to the larger space and

86

relatively quieter location, 60% of adult groups indicated enjoyingthis audio, although 60% of single people didn’t stop to listen.Unfortunately, the Piners hut audio was not operational during thesurvey and thus, respondents were not asked about this element.Fewer visitors indicated having looked at the video documentary orhydrogenerator (60% respectively). Of these, 37% enjoyed the videoand 63% did not stop to watch the television. In particular, groupswith children avoided this interactive and only 17% indicated havingenjoyed it. However, for visitors viewing and operating thehydrogenerator, 77% enjoyed the pump, and three in fourrespondents less than 39 years of age and half of those over 40 yearsof age looked at the exhibit. Behavioural mapping confirmed that thehydrogenerator was a popular exhibit (Table 4.1).

Table 4.7 Level of interest and satisfaction in the interactiveexhibits.


Rainforest sounds Visitors responding 50 100 Enjoyed it* 31 62 Didn’t enjoy it* 3 6 Didn’t hear it* 16 32

Audio presented by Visitors responding 39 78Aboriginal community Enjoyed it* 9 23members Didn’t enjoy it* 4 10

Didn’t hear/ couldn’t hear* 25 64 Unsure* 1 3

Convict history audio Visitors responding 37 74 Enjoyed it* 15 41 Didn’t enjoy it* 3 8 Didn’t stop/couldn’t hear* 19 51

Television documentary Visitors looked at video 30 60 Enjoyed it* 11 37 Didn’t enjoy it* 0 0 Didn’t stop/see it* 19 63

Hydrogenerator Visitors looked at display 30 60 Enjoyed it* 23 77 Didn’t enjoy it* 0 0 Didn’t operate* 7 23

*Percentage of those visitors responding to the interactive exhibit specifiedInteractives recorded in order as they appear in the display

87

4.2.6 Importance of Visitor Centres to the Holiday Experience

Over 90% of all respondents to the Centre indicated that VCs wereeither very important or somewhat important to their holidayexperience. VCs were important regardless of age, education, wherevisitors had travelled from, group characteristics, time spent at theCentre, or if visitors saw the display. However, VCs appeared to besomewhat more important to visitors’ aged between 40 and 59 yearsof age. Respondents indicated that information was the single mostimportant element they sought (Figure 4.8). In particular, visitors lookfor local area information (69%), local activities and attractions(23%), accommodation (10%) and local history (7%). Respondentsalso identified the importance of staff service and product knowledge(16%), and friendly and polite staff (8%). In addition, respondentssought readable information (15%), an adequate supply of relevantdisplays (4%), brochures (3%) and souvenirs (2%). Finally, 6% ofvisitors pointed out the importance of services (including adequatefacilities and clean toilets) and social interaction (2%). Only one percent of visitors were unsure about the important aspects of VCs.

Figure 4.8 What visitors look for in a visitor centre.

88

NUM

BER

OF V

ISIT

ORS

(%)

Loca

l are

a in

form

atio

n

Loca

l act

iviti

es/a

ttrac

tions

Cust

omer

ser

vice

Easy

to re

ad in

form

atio

n

Acco

mm

odat

ion

info

rmat

ion

Frie

ndy/

polit

e st

aff

Loca

l his

tory

info

rmat

ion

Toile

ts/s

ervi

ces

Disp

lays

Broc

hure

s

Inte

ract

ion

Souv

enirs

Unsu

re

When asked about VCs visited in Tasmania, respondents indicated theCradle Mountain and Port Arthur Visitor Centres were the mostfrequently visited, followed by the Lake St Clair and Hobart VisitorInformation Centres (Table 2.8). One third of respondents indicatedthey had not visited another Tasmanian VC (33%).

Table 4.8 Other Tasmanian visitor centres accessed by visitors.

VARIABLE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

No other centres visited 83 33

Cradle Mountain 58 23

Port Arthur 58 23

Lake St Clair 51 20

Other 41 16

Hobart 44 17

Bicheno 27 11

Mount Field 23 9

Devonport 19 8

Respondents identified Australian VCs and other international centresthat stood out in their mind, what the best features of these centreswere and how the SVC compares to that centre(s). In total,respondents identified 35 Australian VCs and 18 international VCs. Asummary of these VCs is detailed in Table 4.9. When compared toother centres, the SVC rated reasonably well, although visitors oftenfound the comparison difficult as they felt the SVC was unique.Generally, the SVC compared more favourably with other AustralianVCs. However, it was considered smaller, darker, less comprehensivein terms of the services and information, and deficient in someproduct ranges and varied and interactive displays. Despite this,respondents considered the SVC provided a sense of place andatmosphere, and it is an eco-friendly, visually attractive and relaxedenvironment. In addition, visitors commented favourably on theamphitheatre.

89

Table 4.9 A summary of visitor responses regarding othervisitor centres.

VISITOR CENTRE LOCATION BEST FEATURES HOW SVC COMPARES

Australian Visitor Centres

Canberra ACT Big, technical, interactive The SVC is more and well laid out with environmentally friendly,lots of information. but has less information.

Portland NSW The Centre has excellent Different location anddisplays. feel.

Katoomba NSW Excellent location with The SVC is different. The(Blue Mountains) great views, Centre is location is not as good,

interactive and has local however, the amphitheatreinformation and friendlier rates well.staff.

Katherine Gorge NT This large centre blends The SVC is smaller butin with the environment just as good.and the information is well displayed.

Uluru NT Great scenery, location, The SVC is not as wellarchitecture and use of advertised. It is smallcolours. It is free, clean, and dark but hasspacious, quiet and tactile; information. Althoughit has variety, audios, difficult to compare,visual information; and this Centre ratesfriendly staff. reasonably well.

Kakadu NT Good interpretation and The SVC is different.local area information on the Aboriginal community.

Jabiru NT The Centre is in touch The SVC is smallerwith the environment, and it has less culture.it has more displays and it demonstrates authenticity.

Cradle Mountain TAS Quality displays and Paying to see displayfree entry. is a negative.

Lake St Clair TAS Good interpretation This Centre compares well.

Halls Gap VIC Great architecture, The SVC is a smallerspacious, natural timbers centre and not all theand all the displays displays were working.worked.

90


Grampians VIC Great architecture, good The Grampians and SVCinterpretation on the centres are both unique.Aboriginal community, ‘hands on’ activities and local information.

Phillip Island VIC Remote location, huge, Different and comparesspacious and interactive well. Not as – lots of displays, and comprehensive, smaller,

more local area relaxed and lacksinformation. interactive displays.

Overseas Visitor Centres

Galway Ireland Built on a wonderful site Different location at– it also has a restaurant Strahan and the and great staff. surroundings are not

as good.

Tokyo Japan Well organised, lots of The SVC is a bad second.information.

Christchurch and New New Zealand centres are The Christchurch and SVCother New Zealand Zealand reasonably priced, are centres are both good asCentres big and spacious, have they relate to their region.

realistic displays, lots of Although the SVC is information and smaller, it is compares well.friendly staff.

Oslo Norway Visually stunning and The SVC is much smaller.architectural.

Kruger National South The Centre is local and This Centre is wilderPark Africa non-commercial. and it blends in well with

the surroundings.

Serengeti Tanzania Clever and artistic building The SVC is not asdesign, it does not provide impressive but it isjust information. still unique.

English United Very commercial and often The SVC has a better Interpretation Kingdom kitsch. They generally atmosphere and it fitsCentres have a variety of services in with the natural

and efficient helpful staff. environment.


91


Sorvick (York) United Very interactive displays The SVC is very differentKingdom – smells, sounds, – it is smaller, more

animation, readings and text based and lessspoken commentary. expensive.It retells local history and recreates settlement – this is a whole day experience.

Grand Canyon America Grand Canyon centres are The SVC is smaller,United States spacious, has big views there is less local areaNational Parks and a large range of information, the service is

merchandise. USA centres not as good and it isare larger with harder to find.personalised service and lots of information – set up in a personal way to meet visitor needs.

92

5.1 Themes Emerging from the Study

Overall, a number of themes emerged from the visitor survey and keyinformant data that were broadly banded into three main categories:(1) management considerations; (2) design elements; and (3) the valueof community consultation, participation and support (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Themes emerging from the visitor survey and keyinformant data.

93

5. CASE STUDY EVALUATION

THEMES EMERGING LOCAL GOVERNMENT DESIGNERS TOURISM COM. SVCFROM THE DATA AND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY GROUP USERS

AGENCIES

A B C D E F G H I

Management considerations

VCs need to be set within a • •3 • •comprehensive strategy

VCs need to be designed • • • • •for visitor, management and community needs

VCs need to be economic • • • • • •viability

Effective partnerships are • • • • •required

Political arena is important • • • • • • • •

VCs require multiple • • • • • • • •functions

Design elements

Location is important • • • • •

VCs need a distinctive • • • • •design

VCs need to extend into • • • • • • •surrounding environment

3A comprehensive strategy would be difficult given the diversity of visitor centres and their functions

Key informants representing local government, State governmentagencies and designers were generally aware of many key VC designelements and considerations. In contrast, informants representing thetourism industry focused more specifically upon economic andpolitical issues and visitors directed their attention toward VC designand the experiences gained from their visit. However, a number ofissues were important to all groups including the need for VCs to offermultiple functions, good location and design, information, and

94

THEMES EMERGING LOCAL GOVERNMENT DESIGNERS TOURISM COM. SVCFROM THE DATA AND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY GROUP USERS

AGENCIES

A B C D E F G H I

VCs need to provide • • • • • • • •information

Friendly and informed • •staff are important

Good access and signage • • • •is important

Good services are important • • • • •

VCs need to provide • • • • • • •memorable experiences

Interpretation needs to tell • • • • • •1

a good story

Interpretation and • •2 •2 • •2 •2 •1

experiences need to be authentic

Value of the community

Community consultation • • • • • • •and participation is important

Local support is important • • • • • • • •

Referral by the community • • • • •is important

KEY: A - Gerrity; B - Foley; C - Haimes; D - Hepper; E - Flanagan; F - Davey; G - Currant; H - Lehman; I – Visitors to the StrahanVisitor Centre1For those visitors seeing the interpretive display, they commented that it was educational, thought provoking and enjoyable2It depends on how you interpret ‘authenticity’ and whose opinion is presented

memorable and authentic experiences that extend into thesurrounding environment. In particular, all groups recognised thevalue of community participation either in the development orsupport of VCs. Interestingly, visitors to the SVC and informants fromthe tourism industry emphasised the need for friendly and informedstaff and referral from the local community – themes that were not aswidely identified by other informants.

5.2 Strahan as an Eco-tourist Destination

Given the rise of ecotourism, tourists are seeking real experiences thatinclude people and the environment (Woods and Moscardo 1996;Orams 1995; Ballantyne 1995; Nelson 1994). In addition, the SVC’sinterpretive designer, Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001), argued thatTasmanian tourists are interested in knowing more about the State’senvironmental, cultural and social issues. This changing eco-consumersentiment has led to Strahan becoming a popular tourist destinationand an important gateway to the Gordon River and TWWHA. Today,tourism is an important industry in Strahan, and although the localcommunity was initially antagonistic towards the town’s developmentas a tourist village, it is alive and prospering.

The SVC plays an important role in Strahan’s tourism industry in termsof providing tourist information, cultural activities and interpretationabout South West Tasmania. As a result, Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001)claimed that the Centre helped change Strahan’s tourism industry;particularly ‘when tourist operators belatedly realised’ that visitorswere interested in the stories presented because they had ‘remarkableuniversal import’. In addition, he stated that the Centre helped thecommunity regain a sense of ownership for their town, as they wereable to tell their stories in truthful and challenging ways.

When considering Strahan’s tourism success, it is likely that visitornumbers to the SVC will increase and although the facility has beencontroversial, visitor and community environmental awareness isbecoming more sophisticated and receptive to the ideas presented.Consequently, if the SVC is to successfully promote the region and beculturally, economically and environmentally sustainable, it needs tooffer the best experiences possible. As a result, this study identified anumber of issues relevant to the Centre’s viability and these findings

95

can be applied more widely to other VCs (Fallon 2001). This is becausemany visitors to the SVC also visit other centres and they seek similarservices and activities at these facilities. For example, the visitor surveyconfirmed that the SVC is part of Tasmania’s ‘drive-through’experience considering that 98% of respondents visited the Centrewhilst on holiday, 90% travelled by private or rental vehicle aroundthe State, and 66% indicated having visited (one or more) otherTasmanian VCs (Tables 4.3; 4.8). Interestingly, over 90% of allrespondents indicated that VCs were either very important orsomewhat important to their holiday experience, 99% of respondentswere able to identify the aspects they find important at any VC and69% of respondents indicated that they seek local area information(Figure 4.8).

5.3 Visitor Centre Success Criteria

Success criterion contributing to VCs is complex. Tourism consultant,Hepper (pers. comm. 2001) suggested that fundamentally, VCs needto be incorporated into comprehensive, collaborative, cross-agencystrategies to ensure they meet the needs of all stakeholders. Foley(pers. comm. 2001), the General Manager for Market and TouristDevelopment at the State government agency Tourism Tasmania,agreed and added that the location and physical environment areimportant and facilities should be built where the visitors andattractions are found. In addition, VCs should be multi-dimensionaland designed for distinctiveness and fit comfortably within thelandscape to ensure a sense of welcome and place is provided(Stewart et al. 1998). Moscardo (1999) also recognises theimportance of centres meeting visitor needs to ensure that facilitiesattract their attention and inspire their imagination. Given thesefactors, Currant (pers. comm. 2001), the Managing Director of TheStrahan Village, agreed with Moscardo (1998) and Carter (1997), inthat VCs should be assessed by their popularity with visitors. Usingthis measure, the SVC was successful and this study found thatvisitors, who were evenly spread across age, sex, and groupcharacteristics, were indeed satisfied with the facility (Tables 4.2; 4.3).In addition, 87% of respondents commented favourably on thebuilding’s design and they indicated this was the Centre’s best aspect(Table 4.5; Figure 4.5).

96

Despite visitor satisfaction, the SVC has not been economicallysustainable either under Tasmanian State government agency controlfrom 1992 to 1997, or under the current MOU agreement betweenthe State government and TREC. Consequently, this study illustratesthat it is not enough to measure a VC’s success by its popularity withvisitors, and it is important that manager and operator needs are metbecause ultimately, these bodies subsidise or underwrite facilities.Haimes (pers. comm. 2001), the Visitor Centre Planner and ProjectCoordinator at the State government agency TPWS, accepted thislimitation and conceded that developing and maintaining VCs isdifficult ‘even with a great deal of community support’. Consequently,before building facilities, it is necessary to establish a clear need for acentre and ascertain if governments, the tourism industry and localcommunities are committed to being actively involved in its on-goingoperations. However, Foley (pers. comm. 2001) explained thatexpecting VCs to be ‘commercially sustainable, if run on traditionalenterprise models, is unrealistic’ and active government involvementor effective partnerships, where organisations or businessesunderwrite larger centres, may be required if they are to remaineconomically sustainable.

The Tasmanian Attractions Study identifies that attractions with morethat 50,000 visitors per annum make sustainable profits (TourismSolutions and Inspiring Place 1999). Using this measure, the SVC hasthe capacity to be economically sustainable because it attracts a criticalvisitor mass - estimated by Davey (pers. comm. 2001), TREC’sManaging Director, at 82,000 visitors for the year ending 2000.However, the Centre is not viable and many services including thedisplay and information provision run at a loss (Davey pers. comm.2001). For example, the display only attracts 10,000 visitors per year,and although it charges an entry fee and should offer a lucrativerevenue base, it generates limited returns. Consequently, the Centre issubsidised by TREC and from 1997 to 2000, the Company contributedover $AUD200,000 to the facility (Davey pers. comm. 2001).

Given that the Centre fails to meet management and operator needsbecause it is economically unsustainable as it continues to loosemoney under the present structure (Davey pers. comm.. 2001; TREC

97

2000),3 it is essential that multiple functions are further developed atthe facility, to ensure it appeals widely and on-sells services andactivities to as many visitors as possible. Foley (pers. comm. 2001)acknowledged that this Centre needs to expand its revenue base, butrecognised that service provision may be restricted because the spaceapportioned to these activities is small, cramped and dark whencompared to the large and airy display area. As a result, less than onethird of visitors purchased goods (Table 4.4). Foley argued that all VCsface this dilemma, they ‘are not viable as stand-alone information orinterpretation centres’, and a mix of directed functions (includingretail) needs to be delivered in appealing settings to attract visitorsand provide business.

Considering that this Centre attracts sufficient visitors but continuesto be economically unsustainable, other factors must also contributeto its viability. Moscardo (1999) and Grenier et al. (1993) provide aninsight and suggest that VC experiences should also reflect publicattitudes, expectations and consciousness. The Mayor of Tasmania’sWest Coast region, Gerrity (pers. comm. 2001) agreed, and explainedthat innovative design and economic viability are essential VC successcriteria. However, he also suggested that it is important thatgovernments, designers and operators consider the political arenaand local community; ensure that VCs foster community ownership,credibility and referral; and provide a structure where facilities canevolve over time to reflect changing needs.

5.4 The Political Arena

Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001), stated that the Centre was a jointcreation between the design team and ‘designers, architects, artists,Aboriginal community members, local people and others’, as theteam wanted ‘to pay homage and respect to the community’.Flanagan recalled that some members of Strahan’s community wereinvolved in the Centre’s design and he aimed for the building andinterpretation to show ‘their world as dirty, scruffy, rusty, steamy, andbeautiful as it actually is’. However, he considered that State

98

3 For the 1999-2000 year, the SVC activity statement records a total income of $AUD82,808, withtotal expenditure at $AUD92,029 (TREC 2000). In addition, volunteer staffing provided by TREC’soperators over the last three years to 2000 is estimated at $AUD135,000. From 1997-2000, TREC’soperators have also provided a direct cash contribution to the SVC of $AUD73,491.

government agencies involved with the Centre’s construction did notsee it in a creative light, but as ‘an exercise of bureaucratic politics’.Consequently, the facility attracted criticism from government andmembers of the local community who disagreed with the design andinterpretive intent, and although the design team was pressured tomake changes, it refused to meet these groups needs. In response tothe criticisms, Flanagan recollected that a ‘crazy alliance’ did form insupport of the Centre that included the Traditional Recreational LandUse Group, West Coast Council, Gay Law Reform Committee and theAboriginal community.

Given the controversy surrounding the Centre, Flanagan (pers. comm.2001) suggested the TPWS will not encourage similar developmentsin the future. In doing so the State government may continue to‘waste taxpayer’s money’ because government agencies may stifleinterpretive creativity and repeat the same stories in unauthentic,mediocre and superficial ways (Flanagan pers. comm. 2001). Gerrity(pers. comm., 2001) agreed that power relations affected manyoutcomes at the Centre. However, he suggested that it was not onlythe State government who imposed its perceptions of the area in theCentre rather than the facility reflecting the community’s views, butalso the design team and tourism industry from outside the WestCoast region. Gerrity considered that the West Coast community wasgenerally not invited to become involved with either the design orconstruction of the Centre and consequently, the ‘architecture,interpretation and politics surrounding the Centre’s development …were controversial from the project’s beginning’ (Gerrity pers. comm.,2001). As a result, he argued that the Centre has not been wellaccepted by those living on Tasmania’s West Coast, although it ismore accepted today - if only as ‘a liability which at least is doing noharm’.

5.5 Value Community, Cultural and Social Capital

Gerrity (pers. comm. 2001) and Currant (pers. comm. 2001) thoughtthe SVC must be considered in relation to the attitudes of, and thesupport provided by, all Tasmanian West Coast communities. Theystated that many of the Centre’s problems stem from thecommunities’ antagonism toward it, as some members from thesecommunities feel that outsiders built and now operate the facility. In

99

addition, Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001) recalled that after the Centreopened, the State government did not promote or back the facilityand this resulted in the wider community further restricting itssupport. Gerrity (pers. comm. 2001) agreed and identified thefollowing:

• Tasmanian West Coast communities were not adequatelyinformed of the benefits the Centre would bring to the region;

• the Centre does not enhance the community’s credibility, nor doesit reflect the heart, personality, pride and humour of South WestTasmania; and

• the interpretation does not tell the true stories of the community,nor does it capture the psychology or synergy of Strahan as aworking town, a fishing community or an operational port.

This case study demonstrates the importance of encouraging andinspiring local communities to participate in designing and operatingVCs because ultimately, these groups provide referral, and culturaland social integrity. The visitor survey suggests that, althoughgovernment and others perceive that the local community may notfully support the Centre, the community does to some extent refervisitors to the facility. In total, 18% of respondents were referredlocally to the facility and 11.5% learnt of the Centre from tourisminformation including local information (Table 4.4). This implies that ifthe local community were more supportive, even more visitors may beencouraged to use the facility. Conversely, if the communitywithdraws their support from the Centre, the facility may becomeincreasingly culturally and economically unsustainable - an outcomethat could eventuate despite overall visitor satisfaction.

Although the SVC has been both supported and rejected byTasmanian West Coast communities with great feeling since itsconstruction, the controversy could be positively harnessed to presentcontemporary stories. The inclusion of these communities in thedevelopment of current activities provides a chance for re-appraisingthe Centre’s opportunities, and it creates new avenues for on-goingevents and interpretation. Re-empowering the community in theCentre’s development would assist in re-establishing a shared vision of

100

the region’s heritage and culture, developing a distinctive regionaltourism product and creating new visitor experiences. Trotter (1999),Ballantyne and Uzzell (1999) and Taylor (1995) suggest that thisapproach fosters social capital and respects the diversity of acommunity’s values. In addition, it promotes cultural pride andreconciliation (James 1999) by allowing different groups to‘acknowledge and appreciate the interconnectedness of their history’(Ballantyne 1995:16). However, Foley (pers. comm. 2001) pointed outthat it may be difficult for the SVC to move forward from its currentposition and the State government will need to foster and nurture theconsultation process.

It is important to value community, cultural and social capital becausegovernments or design consultants may not have the knowledge,understanding or opportunity to experience the values of that placeto be presented or interpreted. In an effort to promote communityconsultation, governments need to identify communities of people(whether they are local or state-wide) who have an interest in afacility, or who are instrumental in defining the values of that place.Given that values are social constructions, the engagement of peoplewho are part of the area and who generate those values is essentialto a centre’s success. As a result, if communities are expected toprovide support and referral to VCs, governments and operators needto consider their needs and motivations.

Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001) provided an alternative view. Heconsidered that honouring community, cultural and social capital ‘isachieved by focusing thought, love and creativity on whatever youdiscover about a place or people’, and not through the ‘nonsense ofendless consensus, the lie of community consultation’. According toFlanagan, this is because such processes result in a few powerful,generally reactionary and sclerotic voices being heard rather than the‘pulse of the community’. As a result, he stated that he ‘never claimedto speak for anybody’ other than himself at the SVC, and hequestioned who can claim to represent any community. This is animportant point, as difficulties arise when deciding which members ofthe local community will be represented or who should present thecommunity vision. In addition, planners and designers need to definewhat comprises a local community and whether a local or regionalapproach should be adopted. With regard to the SVC, eliciting the

101

local community’s support appears to have been insufficient and itmay have been appropriate to have sought assistance and referralmore widely, by extending the ‘local community’ to include others onTasmania’s West Coast.

5.6 Authentic Experiences

James (1999), Uzzell and Ballantyne (1998) and Flanagan (1996)identify that VCs need to present authentic experiences. Lehman(pers. comm. 2001), the Aboriginal Planning Officer at the TPWS,agreed that interpretation needs to be delivered authentically,although he warned that difficulties arise when defining the meaningof ‘authenticity’ as he considered that it is can be ‘a political term’. Inreality, there is no objective element called ‘authenticity’ that standsout independent of social and political analysis or an individual’s valuesystem. What is authentic to one person may not be to another.Consequently, authenticity relates to experience and it depends oneach person’s individual perspective. As a result, it is difficult toprovide interpretation that is representative of a people or community,and designers need to identify whose authenticity they are depictingand deliver experiences or interpret stories that are relevant andaccurate. Ultimately, authenticity ‘must be of the place or relate toplace’ and to achieve successful outcomes, research is required to testauthentic experiences ‘against market perceptions’ (Foley pers.comm. 2001).

Lehman (pers. comm. 2001) stated that the Aboriginal communityreconciles issues of authenticity by presenting elements as stories. Forexample, when the community elected body, the TALC undertakesinterpretation, it represents the community by presenting culturalgeneralisations. However, Lehman also identified the importance oftelling individual stories. Stories are not presented with the objectiveof trying to be representative of the whole community because thereare huge arrays of indigenous experiences. However, collectively theseindividual experiences make up a diverse community and a moreholistic account.

Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001) agreed with the view of Ham andKrumpe (1996), that a well-articulated theme expresses a belief.Flanagan considered he tried to show the truth as he found it at the

102

SVC and ‘this is all any designer can hope to achieve’. Consequently,he stated that interpretation should be signed like books or filmsbecause interpretive ownership would encourage excellence and theaudience should know its creator. According to Flanagan, thisapproach ‘provides the visitor an opportunity to say well - that’s theirpoint of view and I have a different one’. He felt that ‘rather thanappeasing all communities and presenting accepted and sanitisedmisnomers, communities should reach for something morefundamental’ and feel confident to present authenticity and truth asthey see it.

For new Tasmanian VCs, Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001) hoped theState government will allow people to tell the truth in challenging,provoking and interesting ways. He stated the importance ofrecognising that it is possible to evoke the visitor’s imagination bytelling lies, but fundamentally, interpretation should be truthful.Whilst Flanagan thought the SVC attempts to present true Tasmanianstories, he considered that the State’s tourism industry has beenideological and it has not been truthful at other tourist attractions.Consequently, he argued that the industry fails to acknowledge theState’s complex and bitter past and it presents ‘a cosy image ofTasmania’, but in reality ‘it is an extraordinary place and extraordinarythings have happened here’.

5.7 Interpreting Aboriginal Culture

Lehman (pers. comm. 2001) pointed out that ‘Aboriginalinterpretation is a little different to many other interpretive areas’. Assuch, this interpretation covers real and contemporary issues thataffect the present (Ballantyne 1995). In terms of heritage and culture,Lehman explained that like society, the Aboriginal community’sattitudes have changed and in some cases communities have becomemore liberal and relaxed. Therefore, their interpretation should bereflected as an ongoing entity that is evolving over time. With this inmind, Lehman identified that the Aboriginal community’sinterpretation is more appropriate when presenting issues that arealready in the public domain or matters that the Aboriginalcommunity initiates.

103

When interpreting the Aboriginal peoples’ culture, governments anddesigners need to consult with the Aboriginal community. Thisprocess depends on the Aboriginal community’s available resourcesand although interpretation is ‘very important … as it is an investmentin the future in terms of modifying public perceptions andunderstanding’ Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council (TALC) needs tobalance interpretation with its other commitments (Lehman pers.comm. 2001). Consequently, some work may need to be commencedby State government agencies. However, Lehman pointed out thatagencies need ‘to recognise the Aboriginal communities’ right inparticipating as early as it wants to or as it sees appropriate, in theplanning and design processes.

Haimes (pers. comm. 2001) explained that the TPWS are obliged toundertake consultation when developing interpretation thatrepresents the Aboriginal community or controversial events, and that‘by and large’ this process works well. Lehman (pers. comm. 2001)considered that consultation between TALC and the TPWS wasimproving, although it is not happening as successfully as it should.He stated that while consultation occurs earlier than in the past, itdoes not happen early enough in the planning process. Consequently,stakeholders agree that community consultation is valuable. However,there are mixed perceptions regarding the success of the process andState government agencies may need to ask other stakeholderswhether consultation is meeting their needs.

James (1999) and Bates (1992) identify that inadequate consultationresults in inappropriate issues or images being presented, or the storybeing presented in the wrong place. Lehman (pers. comm. 2001)agreed, and stated that problems occur when interpretive themesfocus on ‘the rendition of visual images’, or they highlight issuesabout the concept of wilderness as a land empty of people, a landunspoiled by people. However, the term wilderness is becoming moresophisticated and Lehman thought the Aboriginal community is moreconfident in working with the re-definition of this concept as areasthat have not been affected by mechanised access andindustrialisation, and have been, or are, populated.

104

5.8 Interpretation - Valuable Lessons

The re-definition of wilderness is reflected at the SVC andinterpretation representing the Aboriginal community wassuccessfully installed after consultation with the Aboriginalcommunity. According to Flanagan (pers. comm. 2001), theinterpretation recognises that people lived in South West Tasmania forup to 32,000 years, and he considered the display’s success is due tothe stories presented reflecting real issues that affect visitorspersonally. He argued that if ‘you deal with anything in a particularplace it becomes fascinating because of conflict and certain darkness… this is what people want to hear’. Consequently, Flanagan statedthat he pro-actively and politically used ‘hot’ interpretation to conveyreal Tasmanian stories and foster community development.

Flanagan’s views and interpretive style are consistent with Ballantyneand Uzzell (1999), Serrell (1996) and Ham (1992) who suggest that‘hot’ interpretation and constructivist interpretive approaches betaken, where personal connections and cognitive conflict challengeand encourage visitor emotions to facilitate learning, mindfulness andoverall satisfaction. In this sense, Uzzell and Ballantyne (1998:154)argue that ‘hot’ interpretation ‘appreciates the need for and injects anaffective component into its subject matter’ to arouse an emotionalresponse, and cognitive conflict presents visitors with newknowledge, attitudes, values or behaviours which are incompatiblewith their present understandings. Trotter (1999) adds that ‘hot’interpretation can also be used to foster social capital. However,Lehman (pers. comm. 2000) warned that ‘hot’ interpretation isrelevant to the setting, and it is important to consult with people andcommunities to ensure that all sensitivities are addressed.Consequently, cultural, controversial or conflicting interpretation maybe more successfully developed if it is presented as a collection ofstories, as this approach may result in the delivery of more authenticand holistic community or regional accounts.

Moscardo (1999) suggests that telling a good story is a criticalinterpretive success factor. Foley (pers. comm. 2001) and Hepper(pers. comm. 2001) agreed, and stated that interpretive stories arestronger when they present a holistic picture. In addition, the most

105

significant findings for visitors seeing the display were that 88% feltit told a good story and 92% were happy having paid to see theexhibits. This is interesting, considering that over one quarter ofvisitors not seeing the display regarded the $AUD3.30 entry fee as tooexpensive. Therefore, this study found that visitors seeing the displaywere more likely to be satisfied if it told a good story.

Haimes (pers. comm. 2001) considered the SVC is ‘an unusualsituation … in that the stories were designed to be provocative’ andthe TPWS does not currently use this approach. Haimes’ view isrelevant, because although visitors commented favourably on theCentre and its interpretation; and consultation with the Aboriginalcommunity and other cultural groups was ‘conducted successfully forits time’ (Lehaman pers. comm. 2001; Flanagan pers. comm. 2001);State government agencies and the local community continue to feeldisfranchised from the facility (Gerrity pers. comm. 2001).

Consequently, the Centre is accepted by some, but it continues toattract criticism from its ongoing support base – governments and thelocal community (as reflected by the key informants). This implies thatVC success is largely dependent upon comprehensive government,industry and community consultation, and the inclusion of thesegroups’ needs in a facility’s operations. Ballantyne and Uzzell (1999)agree, and suggest that all stakeholders should be incorporated intothe planning process to ensure the purpose and elements of thefacility, and the stories and presentation techniques are negotiatedwith, rather than imposed upon, the community. If this process isinadequate or breaks down, communities may becomedisenfranchised and antagonistic if they feel their stories have beenmisrepresented or given away for the sake of value adding the tourismproduct. When considering these issues, VCs should offer sometangible community development and it is important for governmentsand the tourism industry to consider the needs of cultural and localcommunities to ensure positive outcomes for all stakeholders.

106

6.1 Elements Contributing to Visitor Centre Excellence

This study successfully investigated key issues relevant to planning,designing and evaluating effective and sustainable VCs; and analysedvisitors to the SVC to determine: (i) who used the Centre (ii) howvisitors used the Centre (iii) what visitors thought of the Centre (iv)and what impacts the Centre had on users.

This study found a number of valid conclusions appropriate to thesingle case. However, the study also identified a number of keyelements that may contribute to effective and sustainable VCsgenerally including the following.

• Identify the need for, and function of, any new centre – oncethe need has been established, it is important to understand themarket, the types of visitors likely to access the VC and thefunction and role of the facility.

• Understand the audience(s) – to meet visitor, management andcommunity needs. This is because VC sustainability includeseconomic factors, as well as political, social, cultural, spiritual andenvironmental considerations.

• Clearly identify resources – is the VC is to be self-, partly-, orfully funded? If it is to be self-supporting the facility requires acritical visitor mass and the right selection of visitors who will buyproducts and provide an economic base.

• Foster effective partnerships – where active State governmentagency involvement or the tourism industry underwrites a centre,and the local community provides assistance and referral.

• Consider ongoing operational and maintenance costs – andthose who will provide the resources need to be determinedduring the planning stage.

107

6. CONCLUSIONS

• Value social, community and cultural capital – local andcultural community ownership and participation in the design andoperation of VCs is essential because ultimately, communitiesprovide ongoing support.

• Provide personal experiences – because visitors seekexperiences that are real, intimate and friendly.

• Develop multiple functions – because a mix of activity andrevenue bases is required to appeal for as wide an audience aspossible. These functions need to be targeted to ensure they meetall stakeholders needs.

• Promote and market the facility – to ensure that visitors areaware of the VC. Signage in and around the Centre (or around thetownship) should be clear, concise and effective and a variety ofmarketing strategies should be employed.

• Choose the location carefully – and build the VCs where theattraction and visitors are found. VCs need to fit comfortablywithin the setting, provide a sense of place in the landscape andconsider the audience’s needs.

• Visible and accessible entrances are essential – because theyprovide a sense of welcome and orientate visitors to a site oractivity. Entrances should entice visitors to explore and providesome advance suggestion of what is to follow.

• Provide distinct and innovative designs – because VCs need toinspire the imagination and provide a presence rather than mimicor replicate the setting.

• Create distinct and authentic experiences – which are of theplace or relate to the place, and are relevant and accurate forpeople and communities.

• Present important messages at the beginning of theexperience – to ensure that visitors absorb new information whilethey are inspired and receptive.

108

• Interstitial experiences are important – synergy and linkagesbetween the VC and the landscape are particularly important, andplanners should harness these areas to draw visitors from theenvironment into the facility and from the facility back into theenvironment.

• Be innovative – because visitors seek new, distinct andinteresting experiences. Designers and operators need to beinnovative in the way they ‘do business’.

• Design a facility that evolves over time – any attraction needsto constantly change its information, activities and interpretationto keep the VC current, fresh and innovative. Relevant historicalcontent can be kept, but new elements should be included.

6.2 Elements Contributing to Interpretive Excellence

VCs often provide interpretation and this study identified that tellinga good story is an essential interpretive success factor. In addition,interpretation and other interactive experiences can foster socialcapital and provide an opportunity for respecting the diversity of acommunity’s values. As such, communities can be representedthrough interpretation that is made up of a collection of stories andtogether, these individual experiences can then make up a moreholistic account. However, interpretation also needs to be provided indifferent ways and offer alternative experiences to ensure it appealsto as wide an audience as possible. This study found that interpretiveexperiences need to be:

• Authentic – interpretation should be credible, clear and related tothe essence of that place. Given the rich culture and naturalenvironment offered by many settings, interpreters should buildon these elements rather than importing exotic ideas fromelsewhere.

• Entertaining – interpretation should capture people’simagination, it should be fun and visitors should be enriched bythe experience.

109

• Personal – stories should be communicated in a personal way aspeople remember these experiences far more than traditionalmuseum encounters.

• A learning experience – clear messages should come throughthe interpretation that is related to the type of place you wish topresent to others. These messages should not be in conflict withthe communities of that place and the messages should leave alasting impression.

• Community focused – interpretation will always be stronger withlocal involvement. The community ought to be involved throughthe process and outcomes and planners need to develop moreeffective ways of defining and involving communities in the designand delivery of interpretation.

6.3 New Directions for the Strahan Visitor Centre

This study found that 76% of visitors to the SVC of visitors wereAustralians travelling mostly from Victoria, New South Wales andQueensland and 16% of visitors were overseas tourists. Visitors weregenerally between 30 and 49 years of age and 68% had completedtertiary qualifications. Over 85% of visitors commented favourablyabout the Centre and over 90% indicated that VCs in general areimportant to their holiday experience. Whilst at the Centre, 75% ofvisitors sought information or came to browse and they indicated thatinformation on what to do in the local area was an essential VCfunction. At the SVC, the display was less popular than the provisionof information and only 20% of visitors paid to see this attraction.

The SVC was generally effective in terms of providing multiplefunctions; distinct and innovative experiences; interstitial experiencesthat link the Centre to the surrounding environment; andinterpretation that was authentic, entertaining personal andeducational. In addition, the Centre excelled in providing touristinformation. However, the SVC was less effective in a number of waysincluding the lack of signage and marketing of the facility; concealedand restricted entrances; an inadequate information foyer in terms ofsize, function and lighting; a number of outdated displays; andinterpretation that failed to present all the local community’s stories

110

including Strahan’s maritime history, the fishing community, mining,coastal ecology and fauna. In addition, it is questionable as towhether the SVC is economically sustainable as it is loosing moneyand being subsidised in terms of direct financial support and voluntarylabour by the current operators. This point is highlighted by Gerrity(pers. comm. 2001), Foley (pers. comm. 2001) and Hepper (pers.comm. 2001) who stated that the personal input provided by Davey(TREC) was vital to the Centre’s success and he is an asset to Strahan’stourism product. In addition, only 20% of those visiting the Centrepaid to see the display despite this area occupying more that 80% ofthe building. Finally, a number of key informants considered that moreeffort needs to be directed towards fostering community and industrysupport for the Centre to ensure continued local input and referral tothe facility. The study identified the following initiatives to improve theSVC’c economic, social and cultural viability.

• Retain the Centre – because what some Tasmanians revile todaymay become tomorrow’s icon.

• Develop a clear State government agency objective – tofoster support and ensure that functions and messages aretargeted in a strategic manner.

• Acknowledge the real costs – associated with providing touristservices, particularly during winter. Governments may need toacknowledge the significant costs of providing these services andoffer assistance. Multiple functions may also need to be expanded.

• Improve promotion, signage and on-site visitor orientation– as the entrances to the building and the display are obscured andlack presence. As a result, they need to be made more visible andsignage into the building and display needs to be improved. Inaddition, the State government and the tourism industry may wishto consider producing a professional brochure to present theStrahan/West Coast attractions to visitors.

• Promote the play and display – because the play and displayboth present a significant opportunity to attract more patrons andincrease revenue. In addition, it is important to provideinterpretation that is current, innovative and varied.

111

• Foster greater community support – the inclusion of WestCoast communities in the development of current interpretivestories would provide an opportunity for re-appraising the Centre’sinterpretive opportunities and creating new and on-goinginterpretation.

• Develop additional interstitial experiences – to create linkagesbetween the Centre, Macquarie Harbour, the main precinct andthe landscape. Interstitial experiences could also be extended intothe main precinct in an effort to attract visitors to the Centre.

6.4 Reflections

Although the SVC was selected as an extreme case, this researchfound that many issues affecting this facility have universalapplication. This case study illustrates that VCs are not viable if theyare only popular with visitors, and any facility has the potential tobecome controversial or unsustainable if it fails to meet the needs,and elicit the support, of all stakeholders. As a result, it is importantthat stakeholders actively and publicly support VCs – from theirinception through to their operation. Unfortunately, there is noprescriptive formula by which to plan VCs and they need to beconstructed on a case-by-case basis to ensure all relevant needs areaccommodated. However, interpretive VCs should be authentic,entertaining, personal, a learning experience and community focused,because interpretation will always be stronger with local involvement.

The argument that interpretive VCs offer effective mechanisms forsupporting and managing tourism is ambitious. The reality of rapidlygrowing tourist numbers causes some authors to caution that selfeducation and visitor regulation are rarely sufficient in achievingadequate standards in terms of cultural, social and environmentalprotection. However, whilst understanding these criticisms, it wouldbe inappropriate to discount VCs as possible solutions for enhancingquality visitor experiences, providing tourist information andmanaging visitor impacts. Therefore, providing information to touristsand influencing their behaviour requires a truly inter-disciplinaryapproach where VCs provide one important facet of an overarchingtourist information and environmental education strategy.

112

The debate remains as to whether VCs should be visitor,management, business or community focused. Whether they arepublicly owned, private ventures or operated under MOU orconcessionaire agreements, VCs can contribute significantly tosociety’s cultural and environmental capital. Considering that touristsare seeking authentic experiences and VCs exist to serve the public, itis important that commercial imperatives do not compromise thesefacilities or the values presented within them. Consequently, allstakeholders need to be included in the planning, design andoperation of VCs where the consultation process is negotiated withthe community. This approach ensures that facilities meetmanagement, visitor, the tourism industry, local community andcultural group needs. In addition, given that one of the overarchingmessages presented by VCs is minimising environmental impact, it isimportant that stakeholders consider and evaluate the potentialimpact of the facility itself. Ultimately, if VCs ask visitors to respect andcare for the community and environment, the facility itself must takea lead and do likewise.

As a result, further research will assist those seeking to build VCs todetermine their role and function. In this study, three main categoriesemerged in the visitor survey and key informant data that requireadditional research: (1) management considerations; (2) designelements; and (3) the value of community consultation, participationand support (Table 5.1). In particular, comprehensive, collaborative,cross-agency tourism and interpretation strategies need to bedeveloped to ensure that VCs are built within a regional vision andinterpretation is unique and distinctive at each location. Withoutthese strategies, VCs may become compromised and focus onindividual government agency or operator objectives and interests,rather than the needs of all stakeholders.

In addition, few studies have determined what constitutes anauthentic VC experience or compared the effectiveness of VCinterpretation with interpretive experiences that are either presentedin-situ or personally through guided activities. Research could also bedirected towards identifying what benefits intermediate interpretiveexperiences (those linking the built structure with the surroundingenvironment) provide in creating a sense of place for both visitors andthe local community. Furthermore, VCs need to change over time to

113

reflect changing community attitudes and research is required todetermine how this can be successfully achieved. Few studies haveassessed community perceptions towards VCs. If interpretive VCs areto actively conserve natural environments and sustain the well-beingof local people and communities, research is needed to determinehow communities can become involved in planning and operatingthese facilities. Finally, the success of VCs should not only bemeasured in terms of meeting visitor needs or the tourism industry.Given that these facilities should also meet the needs ofmanagement, local communities and cultural groups, they ought tobe assessed with these stakeholders in mind.

This research has attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of the SVCand the researchers found that a multi-method research approachwas an appropriate technique to complete the study’s aims as itprovided comprehensive insights into all issues affecting the Centre.However, the researchers found that the key informant interviewselicited the most useful information in terms of knowledge andresources. In addition, it was the outcomes from the key informantinterviews that could be applied more generally to other VCs. Despitethis, a number of key findings came from the on-site visitor surveyincluding the value of VCs to the overall visitor experience, the needfor VCs to provide information on what to do in the local area and thepopularity of displays depicting Aboriginal culture. Given thatAustralia is currently constructing many new VCs, this study highlightsthe importance of evaluating these centres to ensure they provideeffective, authentic, innovative and economically viable information,services and interpretation. As a result, this study provides an effectiveframework by which other VCs can be assessed.

114

Absher, J. (1997). Introduction: Interpretation as communication.Trends: Park Practise Program, 34(4), 2-3.

Aldridge, D. (1988). Presentation verses interpretation: How the shipof interpretation was blown off course in the tempest: somephilosophical thoughts. Paper presented at the Second WorldCongress, Heritage presentation and interpretation, University ofWarwick, Coventry, England.

Anderson, D. and Lucas, K. (1997). The effectiveness of orientatingstudents to the physical features of a science museum prior tovisitation. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 485-495.

Armstrong, K. and Enting, P. (1999). The management ofinterpretation within a business model: The Australian experience.Paper presented at the Conference of the Interpretation AustraliaAssociation, The human factor in interpretation, InterpretationAustralia Association, Hobart, Australia, 7-15.

Atkinson, G. (1991). The operation of visitor centres. In Moscardo, G.and Hughes, K. (eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory.Paper presented at the National Conference on Visitor Centres,James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, 47-60.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1991). Survey design and statisticalpresentation: A training course for the Department of Health.Australian Bureau of Statistics, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Ballantyne, R. (1995). Interpreters’ conceptions of Australianaboriginal culture and heritage: Implications for interpretivepractise. The Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4), 11-17.

Ballantyne, R. and Uzzell, D. (1993). Environmental mediation and hotinterpretation: A case study of District Six, Cape Town.Environmental Education, 24(3), 4-7.

Ballantyne, R. and Uzzell, D. (1999). International trends in heritageand environmental interpretation: Future directions for Australianresearch and practice. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 59-75.

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Beckmann, E. (1998). Targetedinterpretation: Exploring relationships among visitors’ motivations,activities, attitudes, information needs and preferences. TheJournal of Tourism Studies, 9(1), 14-25.

115

REFERENCES

Bates, B. (1992). Whose cultural values? Paper presented at theInternational Conference held by Australia ICOMOS, HistoricEnvironment, 10(2 & 3), 63-66.

Beazley, E. (1969). Designed for creation: A practical handbook for allconcerned with providing leisure facilities in the countryside. Faberand Faber, London, England.

Beckmann, E. (1987). Interpretation in Australia – Current status andfuture prospects. Australian Parks and Recreation, 23(6), 6-14.

Beckmann, E. (1988). Interpretation in Australia: Some examplesoutside national parks. Australian Parks and Recreation, 24(3), 8-12.

Beckmann, E. (1990). Evaluation of interpretive services and facilities– Kakadu National Park. Parks and Wildlife Commission, NorthernTerritory, Australia, 5-1 – 12-3.

Beckmann, E. (1991). Evaluating visitor centres for better visitorsatisfaction and better visitor management. In Moscardo, G. andHughes, K. (eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory. Paperpresented at the National Conference on Visitor Centres, JamesCook University, Townsville, Australia, 102-112.

Beckmann, E. (1999). Evaluating visitors’ reactions to interpretation inAustralian national parks. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 5-19.

Bennett, D. (1987). Four steps to evaluating environmental educationlearning experiences. Paper presented at the conference of theNorth America Association for Environmental Education, QuebecCity, Canada.

Benson, D. and Baird, R. (1979). Park techniques: Designing goodbasic visitor centres. Park, 4(3), 16-20.

Black, R. and Mackay, J. (1995). The Australian Alps: Getting themessages across. In Beckman, E. and Russell, R. (eds),Interpretation and the getting of wisdom. Paper presented at theForth Annual Conference of the Interpretation AustraliaAssociation, Interpretation Australia Association, Canberra,Australia, 58-62.

Blaike, N. (1988). Triangulation in social research: Origins, use andproblems. Paper presented at the conference of the SociologicalAssociation of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, Australia.

Bradshaw, M. and Stratford, E. (2000). Qualitative research designand rigour. In Hay, I. (ed.), Qualitative research methods in humangeography, (37-49), Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia.

116

Brkic, I. (2001). Strahan visitor statistics: Tasmanian visitor survey (TVS)July 1999 – June 2000, Tourism Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania,Australia.

Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd (1990). Municipality of Strahan tourismdevelopment and marketing strategy. Tourism Tasmania, Milton,Australia.

Carter, J. (1997). A sense of place: An interpretive planninghandbook. Tourism and Environment Initiative, Scotland.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protectedareas. Paper presented at the Caracas World Congress on NationalParks and Protected Areas, International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Cambridge,England, 28-29.

Cheatley, B. (1994). Managing the visitor experience: Knowing yourcurrent and potential visitors is the first step. In Beckman, E. and Hull,S. (eds), Interpretation attached to heritage. Paper presented at theThird Annual Conference of the Interpretation Australia Association,Interpretation Australia Association, Albury, Australia, 24-34.

Christensen, J. (1990). Interpretive education: Park’s preventativemaintenance. Interpscan, 18(3), 9-10.

Christensen, J. (1994). Capture Your Entire Audience. Legacy,July/August, 17-19.

Coke. J. and Hansan, J. (1974). The political context of evaluation. InSze, W. and Hopps, J. (eds), Evaluation and accountability inhuman service programs. Schenkman Publishing Company,Cambridge, England, pp. 41-47.

Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1994). National ecotourismstrategy. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,Australia.

Countryside Commission (1978). Interpretation in visitor centres: Astudy of the effectiveness of interpretive services provided in visitorcentres. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham, England.

Cox, E. (1995). A truly civil society. The Boyer Lectures, ABC, Sydney,Australia, 18-20.

Cubit, S. (1991). Design in the forest. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes, K.(eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory. Paper presented atthe National Conference on Visitor Centres, James CookUniversity, Townsville, Australia, 144-154.

117

Cutler and Associates (1989).Marketing Strahan. In Saunders, R. (ed.),Presenting Tasmania’s World Heritage Area: A strategy forinterpretation. Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage,Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

de Vries Robbé (1980). Countryside interpretation: The interactionbetween countryside visitors and interpretive displays,unpublished MSc thesis in Environmental Psychology, University ofSurvey, England.

Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) (1988).Visitor interpretation manual. Department of Conservation andLand Management, Western Australia, Australia.

Department of Tourism (1995). Best practise ecotourism: A guide toenergy and waste minimisation. Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Dutton, I. (1991). The role of communication strategy in parkinterpretation. In Tabata, R., Yamashiro, J. and Cherem, G. (eds),Joining hands in quality tourism: Interpretation, preservation andthe travel industry. Paper presented at the Heritage InterpretationInternational Third Global Congress, University of Hawaii, Hawaii,94-98.

Eagles, P. (1997). International ecotourism management: UsingAustralia and Africa as case studies. Paper prepared for the IUCNWorld Commission on Protected Areas, Protected areas in the 21stcentury: From islands to networks, Albany, Australia,www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/rec/ecotour.htm, 2 August 2000.

ESD Working Group (1991). Tourism: Final report. ESD WorkingGroup, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,Australia.

Evans, D. (1996). Interpreting a tragedy. Paper presented at the FifthAnnual Conference of the Interpretation Australia Association,Interpretation in action, Interpretation Australia Association,Bendigo, Australia, 7-18.

Evans, L. (1999). Measuring the benefits of multi-media interpretivecentres in natural environments. Paper presented at theConference of the Interpretation Australia Association, The humanfactor in interpretation, Interpretation Australia Association,Hobart, Australia.

118

Evans, L. (2000). Measuring the benefits of multi-media interpretivecentres in natural environments. Flinders University, unpublishedHonours Thesis, 1-111.

Evers Consulting Services Pty Ltd (1984). South West Tasmaniatourism study, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 6-14.

Faggetter, R. (1996). The interpretive environment: Creating place andspace for rich experiences. Presented at the Fifth AnnualConference of the Interpretation Australia Association,Interpretation in action, Interpretation Australia Association,Australia, 7-18.

Falk, J. (1991). Analysis of behaviour of family visitors in naturalhistory museums. Curator, 34, 44-50.

Falk, J., Koran, J., Dierking, L. and Dreblow, L. (1985). Predictingvisitor behaviour, Curator, 28, 249-257.

Fallon, L.D. (2001). Planning and evaluating visitor centres: Anevaluation of the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania, Australia.Unpublished Honours Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart,Tasmania, Australia.

Fazio, J. and Gilbert, D. (1986). Public relations and communicationfor natural resource managers, Tendall Hunt Publishers, Dubuque,Iowa, USA.

Flanagan, R. (1996). Anti-museum: The case of the Strahan visitorcentre. Sites – Nailing the debate: Archaeology and interpretationin museums. Historic Trust of NSW, Lyndhurst, Sydney, Australia,181-197.

Grenier, D., Kaae, B., Miller, M. and Mobley, R. (1993). Ecotourism,landscape architecture and urban planning. Landscape and UrbanPlanning, 25, 1-16.

Griffin, J. (1999). Formal education groups in informal learningsettings: Helping teachers to find an effective balance. Paperpresented at the Challenge of change in education symposium,Sydney, Australia, 173-184.

Hall, C. and McArthur, S. (1998). Integrated heritage management:Principles and practise, The Stationery Office, Southhampton,England.

Ham, S. (1986). Social program evaluation and interpretation: Aliterature review. In Machlis, G. (ed.), Interpretive views: Opinionson evaluating interpretation in the national park service. NationalParks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC, USA, 9-31.

119

Ham, S. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide forpeople with big ideas and small budgets. North American Press,Colorado, USA.

Ham, S. and Krumpe, E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messagesfor nonformal environmental education: A theoretical frameworkfor interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1, 11-23.

Hanna, G. (1995). Wilderness-related environmental outcomes ofadventure and ecology education programming. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 27, 21-32.

Harmon-Price, P. (1991). Visitor centres – the Queensland nationalparks and wildlife service. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes, K. (eds),Visitor centres: Exploring new territory. Paper presented at theNational Conference on Visitor Centres, James Cook University,Townsville, Australia, 78-84.

Hein, G. (1995). The constructivist museum. Journal of Education inMuseums, 15, 21-23.

Hill, D. (1992). Interpretation: A manager’s perspective. In Olsson, S.and Saunders, R. (eds), Open to interpretation 1992. Paperpresented at the Inaugural Conference of the InterpretationAustralia Association, Interpretation Australia Association, cityunknown, Australia, 38-40.

Hockings, M. and Moscardo, G. (1991). The Cardwell visitor centre –Combining evaluation and design. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes,K. (eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory. Paper presentedat the National Conference on Visitor Centres, James CookUniversity, Townsville, Australia, 121-137.

Howard, J. (1997). Interpretation down under: Guided activities atparks and interpretive centres in Australia, LegacyJanuary/February, 10-15.www.parks.tas.gov.ua/publcat/tech/whaplan/text.pdf, 13 October 2000.

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (2000).Managing tourism at places of heritage significance. The ICOMOSInternational Cultural Tourism Charter, ICOMOS Nouvelles News,17-24.

Ioannides, D. (1995). A flawed implementation of sustainabletourism: The experience of Akamas, Cyprus. TourismManagement, 16, 583-592.

120

Jacobs, J. (1999). The labour of cultural geography. In Stratford, E.(ed.), Australian cultural geographies. Oxford University Press,Melbourne, Australia, 11-24.

James, J. (1999). Culturally sensitive research: Interpreting UmeewarraMission. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1), 17-19.

Kearns, R. (2000). Research through observing and participating. InHay, I. (ed.), Qualitative research methods in human geography.Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 103-121.

Klein, E. and Merritt, E. (1994). Environmental education as a modelfor constructivist teaching. Journal of Environmental Education,25(3), 14-21.

Knapp, D. (1997). Back to basics: Interpreting to the lowest commondenominator. Trends: Park Practise Program, 34(4), 17-20.

Korn, R. (1988). Self-guiding brochures: An evaluation. AmericanMuseum of Natural History, 9-19.

Langer E., Blank, A. and Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindfulness ofostensibly thoughtful action. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 36, 635-642.

Langer, E., Hatem, M., Joss, J. and Howell, M. (1989). Conditionalteaching and mindful learning: The role of uncertainty ineducation. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 139-150.

Lee, T. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of heritage interpretation.In Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne, R. (eds), Contemporary issues inheritage and environmental interpretation: Problems andprospects. The Stationery Office, London.

Malbon, A. (1976). Buildings, structures, and other facilities. InSharpe, G. (ed.), Interpreting the environment. John Wiley andSons, USA, 347-376.

Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw. and Crisp, M. (1996). Marketingresearch: An applied orientation. Prentice Hall, Sydney, Australia.

Massey, D. and Meegan, R. (1985). Politics and method: Contrastingstudies in industrial geography. Methuen & Co., London, England.

McArthur, S. and Gardener, T. (1993). Forestry Commission Tasmaniavisitor manual, Forestry Commission Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania,Australia.

McArthur, S. and Hall, C. (1993). Strategic planning for visitor heritagemanagement: integrating people and places through participation.In Hall, C. and McArthur, S. (eds), Heritage management in NewZealand and Australia: Visitor management, interpretation andmarketing. Oxford University Press, Auckland, pp. 241-249.

121

McCarthy, S. (1987). In Serrell, B. (ed.), Exhibit labels: An interpretiveapproach. Altamira Press, London, England.

Melton, A. (1972). Visitor behaviour in museums: Some early researchin environmental design. Human Factors, 14, 393-403.

Meredith, J., Mullins, G. and Fortner, R. (1995). Interpretation and theaffective learning domain. Legacy July/August, 24-31.

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Somelimits on our capacity for processing information, PsychologicalReview, 63(2), 81-97.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. and Alexander, L. (1990). In-depth interviewing: Researching people. Longman Cheshire PtyLtd, Melbourne, Australia.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. and Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis – secondedition. Longman Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.

Molloy, L. (1992). Natural heritage interpretation in New Zealand. InOlsson, S. and Saunders, R. (eds), Open to interpretation. Paperpresented at the Inaugural Conference of the InterpretationAustralia Association, Interpretation Australia Association, cityunknown, Australia, 15-20.

Morris-Nunn, R. and Flanagan, R. (1994). Building magical realism,talk presented at the National Architects’ Conference, Hobart,Tasmanian, Australia.

Moscardo, G. (1986). In Pearce, P. The Ulysses factor: Recent researchin psychology. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.

Moscardo, G. (1988). Toward a cognitive model of visitor responses ininterpretive centres. Journal of Environmental Education, 8, 29-38.

Moscardo, G. (1989). Why Johnny won’t use the computer – Anexamination of the effectiveness of computer exhibits in museumeduction. Paper presented at the Museum Education Associationof Australia Conference, city unknown, Australia, 56-70.

Moscardo, G. (1991). Understanding visitors. Using evaluation forbetter visitor experiences. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes, K. (eds),Visitor centres: Exploring new territory. Paper presented at theNational Conference on Visitor Centres, James Cook University,Townsville, Australia, 85-97.

Moscardo, G. (1993). Evaluation of the Cradle Mountain VisitorCentre – Final report. Department of Tourism, James CookUniversity, Townsville, Australia, 13-30.

122

Moscardo, G. (1996a). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annalsof Tourism Research, 23(2), 376-397.

Moscardo, G. (1996b). Principles for effective interpretation: Whathave we learnt from 100 years of presenting heritage to visitors.Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference of theInterpretation Australia Association, Interpretation in action,Interpretation Australia Association, Bendigo, Australia, 7-18.

Moscardo, G. (1998). Interpretation and sustainable tourism:Functions, examples and principles. The Journal of TourismStudies, 9, 2-13.

Moscardo, G. (1999). Making visitors mindful: Principles for creatingsustainable visitor experiences through effective communication.Sagamore Publishing, Illinios, USA.

Moscardo, G. and Pearce, P. (1986). Visitor centres and environmentalinterpretation: An exploration of the relationships among visitorenjoyment understanding and mindfulness. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 6, 89-108.

Moscardo, G., Verbeek, M. and Woods, B. (1998). Effectiveinterpretation and sustainable tourism: Building upon touristinformation needs. Paper presented at the Fourth Asia PacificTourism Association Conference, The role of tourism – Nationaland regional perspectives, place unknown, 148-155.

Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. Methuen,London, England.

National Park Service (2000a). The Yellowstone National Park – VisitorCentres, Yellowstone National Park Home Page, USA,www.areaparks.com/yellowstone/index.html, 12 October 2000.

National Park Service (2000b). Long range interpretive plan: Executivesummary of major recommendations. Yellowstone National Park,Yellowstone Association, National Park Service, USA.

Neal, A. (1976). Exhibits for a small museum. American Associationfor State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Negra, C. and Manning, R. (1997). Incorporating environmentalbehaviour, ethics, and values into nonformal environmental educationprograms. Journal of Environmental Education, 28(2), 10-12.

Nelson, J. (1994). The spread of ecotourism: Some planningimplications. Environmental Conservation, 21(3), 248-255.

Nephin Consulting Partners (1997). Phoenix rising? – A review ofParks Canada public education programming. Nephin ConsultingPartners, Canada.

123

Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative andquantitative approaches – fourth edition. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, USA.

Office of National Tourism (1996). Projecting success: Visitormanagement projects for sustainable tourism growth. Departmentof Industry, Science and Tourism, Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra, Australia.

Orams, M. (1995). Using interpretation to manage nature-basedtourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4, 81-94.

Orams, M. (1996). A conceptual model of tourist – wildlifeinteraction: The case for education as a management strategy.Australian Geographer, 27, 39-51.

Padgett, R. (2000). The ‘Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999’: What role for the commonwealth inenvironment impact assessment? Unpublished Honours Thesis,University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Patterson, D. and Bitgood, S. (1988). Some evolving principles ofvisitor behaviour. In Bitgood, S., Roper, J. Jr. and Benefield, A.(eds), Visitor studies: Theory, research and practise. Centre forSocial Design, Jacksonville, USA, 41-50.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods –second edition. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, USA.

Payne, D. and Dimanche, F. (1996). Towards a code of conduct for thetourism industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 997-1007.

Pearce, P. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Recent research in psychology.Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.

Pearce, P. (1991). Visitor centres and their function in the landscape oftourism. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes, K. (eds), Visitor centres:Exploring new territory. Paper presented at the NationalConference on Visitor Centres, James Cook University, Townsville,Australia, 7-15.

Peart, B. (1986). The design and evaluation of visitor centres. InMarsh, J. (ed.), Natural and cultural heritage interpretationevaluation. Interpretation Canada, Trent University, Ottawa,Canada, 49-55.

Peart, B. and Kool, R. (1988). Analysis of a natural history exhibit: Aredioramas the answer? The International Journal of MuseumManagement and Curatorship, 7, 117-128.

Perkins, K., Morris-Nunn, R. and Flanagan, R. (1992). Strahan VisitorCentre: Interpretation brief. Interpretation brief complied for theTasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

124

Platt, J. (1988). What can case studies do? Studies in QualitativeMethodology, 1, 1-23.

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism technology and competitive strategies.C.A.B. International, Wallingford, England.

Radford, C. (1991). Networking to fulfil visitor needs: Theestablishment of the New Zealand visitor information network. InMoscardo, G. and Hughes, K. (eds), Visitor centres: Exploring newterritory. Paper presented at the National Conference on VisitorCentres, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, 38-46.

Robertson, A. (1994). Towards constructivist research inenvironmental education. Journal of Environmental Education,25(2), 21-31.

Robinson, G. (1998). Methods and techniques in human geography.John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.

Ryan, C., Hughes, K. and Chirgwin, S. (2000). The gaze, spectacle andecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 148-163.

Saunders, R. (1990). Presenting Tasmania’s World Heritage Area: Astrategy for interpretation. Department of Parks, Wildlife andHeritage, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Saunders, R. (1993). Waldheim chalet – A link between Tasmania’scultural and natural heritage. In Hall, C. and McArthur, S. (eds),Heritage management in New Zealand and Australia: Visitormanagement, interpretation and marketing. Oxford UniversityPress, Auckland, New Zealand, 157-165.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of localcommunities, Tourism Management, 20, 245-249.

Screven, C. (1996). Visitor-based exhibit planning: A question ofsurvival. Paper presented at the Australian Conference at thePowerhouse Museum, Evaluation and Visitor Research inMuseums – Towards 2000, 81-96.

Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. AltamiraPress, London, England.

Shettel, H. (1976). An evaluation of visitor response to man in hisenvironment – Final report, Field Museum of Natural History,Chicago, USA.

Singleton, R. and Straits, B. (1999). Approaches to social research –third edition. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

Smith, V. (1978). Hosts and guests. Blackwell Press, Oxford, England.

125

Spence, R. (1993). Magic realism, The Architectural Review, London,England, 38-40.

Stewart, E., Hayward, B., Devlin, P., and Kirby, V. (1998). The “place”of interpretation: A new approach to the evaluation ofinterpretation. Tourism Management, 19, 257-266.

Sugden, F. and Saunders, R. (1991). Not just a whim: Visitor centresas a part of strategic planning. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes, K.(eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory. Paper presented atthe National Conference on Visitor Centres, James CookUniversity, Townsville, Australia, 66-77.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK.

Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (TPWS) (2000). TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area: 1999 management plan. Parksand Wildlife Service, Department of Primary Industry, Water andthe Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia,

Tasmanian Parliamentary Office (1992). Extracts from Hansard –Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmanian Parliamentary Office, Hobart,Tasmania, Australia.

Tasmanian Visitor Information Network (1999). i – Can help youaround Tasmania. Tasmanian Visitor Information Network Ltdpamphlet, Land Information Services, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Tatnell, A. (1991). Interpretation planning for Namadgi National ParkVisitor Centre. In Moscardo, G. and Hughes, K. (eds), Visitorcentres: Exploring new territory. Paper presented at the NationalConference on Visitor Centres, James Cook University, Townsville,Australia, 197-209.

Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: Does it really work?Tourism Management, 16, 487-489.

The Advocate (1997). Is the centrepiece of a tourism vision now WestCoast’s white elephant? Thursday 10 July, 19-20, Tasmania,Australia.

The Ecotourism Society (1992). Uniting conservation and travelworldwide. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont,USA.

The Round Earth Company (TREC) (2000). Strahan Visitor Centreactivity statement. Round Earth Company, Strahan, Tasmania,Australia.

126

Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage – third edition. NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Tourism Council Australia (1999). Tourism 21 update: A partnershipfor tourism success. Tourism Council Australia, Hobart, Tasmania,Australia.

Tourism Forecasting Council (2001). Forecast: The eleventh report ofthe Tourism Forecasting Council. Department of Industry, Scienceand Resources, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Tourism Solutions and Inspiring Place (1999). The Tasmanianattractions study. Report prepared for Tourism Tasmania, ArtsTasmania, Forestry Tasmania, Parks and Wildlife Service andInvestment, Trade and Development, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Tourism Tasmania (1999a). Tasmania’s holiday market 1999. TourismTasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Tourism Tasmania (1999b). Tasmanian visitor survey 1998/99, TourismTasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Tourism Tasmania (2000). Nature-based tourism in Tasmania 1998-99up-date. Tourism Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Tourism Tasmania (2001). Tasmanian visitor survey 2000 data card.Tourism Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Trotter, R. (1999). Is there a role for community cultural developmentin tourism? Artwork Magazine, 42, 38-43.

Turner, M. (1991). Designing displays to meet objectives. In Moscardo,G. and Hughes, K. (eds), Visitor centres: Exploring new territory.Paper presented at the National Conference on Visitor Centres,James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, 155-162.

Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne, R. (1998). Contemporary issues in heritageand environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects, TheStationery Office, London, England.

Vander Stoep, G. (1988). Rumblings of resurgence: Expanding roles ofand techniques in interpretation. Trends: Parks Practise Program,25(4), 12-18.

Veverka, J. (1997). Interpretation as a management tool. Trends: ParkPractise Program, 34(4), 7-9.

127

Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment (VDNRE)(1999). Best practice in park interpretation and education – Areport to the ANZECC working group on national park andprotected area management benchmarking and best practiceprogram. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, andParks Victoria, Victoria, Australia, 1-86.

Wall, G. (1997). Is ecotourism sustainable. EnvironmentalManagement, 21, 483-491.

Wells, J. (1993). Marketing indigenous heritage: A case study of UluruNational Park. In Hall, C. and McArthur, S. (eds), Heritagemanagement in New Zealand and Australia: Visitor management,interpretation and marketing. Oxford University Press, Auckland,New Zealand, 137-146.

Washburne, R. and Wagar, J. (1972). Evaluating visitor response toexhibit content. Curator, 15, 248-254.

Winkworth, K., James, P. and Freeman, P. (1994). Interpretive strategyfor Tasmania’s parks, reserves and historic sites. Parks and WildlifeService, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Wolfe, R. (1997). Interpretive education as an underratedmanagement tool. Interpscan, Winter, 15-19.

Woods, B. (1997). Interpretive signs in north Queensland: Givingmeaning to places? CRC-Tropical Rainforest Ecology andManagement, Department of Tourism, James Cook University,Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

Woods, B. and Moscardo, G. (1996). Adding value to touristoperations through interpretation: Is interpretation good fortourism, or tourism good for interpretation? Paper presented atthe Fifth Annual Conference of the Interpretation AustraliaAssociation, Interpretation in action, Interpretation AustraliaAssociation, Bendigo, Australia, 109-113.

Wylde, L. (1996). Is interpretation an effective sales tool for visitorinformation centres. Paper presented at the Fifth AnnualConference of the Interpretation Australia Association,Interpretation in action, Interpretation Australia Association,Bendigo, Australia, 119-120.

Zube, unknown, Crystal unknown, and Palmer unknown. (1978). Titleunknown. In Pearce, P. (ed.),The Ulysses factor: Recent research inpsychology. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.

128

129

Brkic, I. (2001). Research Analyst, Market Research, Tourism Tasmania,Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Currant, S. (2001). Managing Director, The Strahan Village, Strahan,Tasmania, Australia.

Davey, R. (2001). Managing Director, The Round Earth Companyoperating under the Strahan Visitor Centre, Strahan, Tasmania,Australia.

Flanagan, R. (2001). Writer and Interpretive Designer, Hobart,Tasmania, Australia.

Foley, J. (2001). General Manager, Market and Tourist Development,Tourism Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Gerrity, D. (2001). West Coast Mayor, West Coast Council, Zeehan,Tasmania, Australia.

Haimes, S. (2001). Planner and Project Coordinator (Visitor Centres),Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Hepper, J. (2001). Tourism Consultant, Inspiring Place, Hobart,Tasmania, Australia.

Lehman, G. (2001). Planning Officer (Aboriginal), Parks and WildlifeService, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

Rundle, S. (2001). Research Officer – Statistics, Tourism andRecreation Section, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tasmania,Australia.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

130

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIASTRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE SURVEY: JANUARY 2001

1. Interview ID 5. Weather 7. How many people in(CIRCLE) the group (CIRCLE AND MARK)1. Sunny 1. Single2. Overcast 2. Couple (1 other adult)

2. Interviewer’s 3. Rain 3. Adult group (>2 adults)Name 4. Adult group with children

(>2 adults)5. Family (with children) No in group No of children

3. Date 6. Female / 8. Is there anyone in the groupMale with mobility problems?(CIRCLE) (walking aid, additional assistance,

wheelchair) (MARK) ; No. of people

4. Time Commenced

Good morning, afternoon, evening. My name is Liza (GIVE SURNAME) from the Tasmanian MarketResearch Firm of EMRS. We’ve been asked to complete a surveyto find out whether you have enjoyed your visit to the StrahanVisitor Centre and I wonder whether you would mindanswering a few questions for me please. This will only takearound 10 minutes.

PROMPT ONLY IF THE RESPONDENT REQUIRES ADDITIONALINFORMATION. The University of Tasmania is conducting this study and yourinput will help to understand the best and worst elements ofthis centre, to ensure that any new Tasmanian visitorinformation centres incorporate only the best possible design.

APPENDIX A: STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE SURVEY

131

IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES FILL IN THE REFUSAL TABLE (PROVIDEDAS A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT). PLEASE CONTINUE IF RESPONDENTAGREES.

ASK ALL RESPONDENTS RESPONSE1. Have you visited the Strahan Yes. GO TO Q2Visitor Centre before? No. GO TO Q3(CIRCLE) 2. When did you last visit the ……………..(days)centre? On last trip(DAYS) (PROBE: WHEN WAS THAT?)3. Where did you find out about Discovered the centrethe centre? on arrival(CIRCLE OR RECORD) Referred by someone in Strahan

From signs in Strahan(PROMPT IF REQUIRED) Tourist brochure/information

Newspaper/magazine articleOther (specify)

4. Why did you decide to visit Find visitor informationthis Centre? Visit the interpretive display(CIRCLE OR RECORD) Book visitor accommodation

Book a tour/activity(PROMPT IF REQUIRED – MORE See the playTHAN ONE RESPONSE POSSIBLE) Something to do

Other (specify)5. Did you find the information Yes. GO TO Q7you were looking for? Just browsing. GO TO Q7(CIRCLE) No. GO TO Q6 6. What information didn’t you find …(PLEASE RECORD)7. How long did you spend at < 5 minutesthe Centre? 5 – 15 minutes(MINUTES) 15 – 30 minutes

30 – 45 minutes45 – 60 minutes> 60 minutes

132

8. Did you look at the Yes. GO TO Q10display in the centre? No. GO TO Q9(CIRCLE AND PROMPT IF REQUIRED:THE DISPLAY YOU PAID TO SEE) 9. Why didn’t you look at the Too expensivedisplay? Didn’t know it was there(CIRCLE OR RECORD) Didn’t know what it was

Didn’t entice me to enterGO TO QUESTION 24 Wasn’t interested

Didn’t have timeAlready experienced area in ‘real life’Other (specify)

ASK ONLY THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO SAW THE DISPLAYI would now like to ask you some questions about the display.The display has a number of Tasmanian themes including:1. Rainforest vegetation 6. Conservationists 2. Aboriginals 7. Conflict3. Convicts 8. The World Heritage Area4. Piners 9. Didn’t read/didn’t5. Industry (mining, forestry like/didn’t learnand tourism)10. What three themes in the display did you read the most about?(RECORD UP TO THREE NUMBERS [1 TO 8] FROM THE ABOVE LIST)11. Which three themes in the display did you like the most?(RECORD UP TO THREE NUMBERS [1 TO 8] FROM THE ABOVE LIST) 12. Did you learn anything from Yes. GO TO Q13the displays? No. GO TO Q14 (CIRCLE)

133

13. If you did, which three themes did you learn the most from …(RECORD UP TO THREE NUMBERS [1 TO 8] FROM THE ABOVE LIST)14. Now that you have been through the display, could you describe how it makes you feel? (PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM) 15. Would you say the display … Told a good story(CIRCLE AND PROMPT) Did not tell a good story

Unsure 16. What did you think about I enjoyed itthe rainforest sounds … Didn’t enjoy it(CIRCLE) Didn’t hear it

It was too loudUnsure

17. Which of the following Aboriginals. GO TO Q18themes did you look at? Convicts. GO TO Q19(CIRCLE – MORE THAN ONE The suburban bungalow.RESPONSE POSSIBLE – ASK GO TO Q20ONLY THE CORRESPONDING Hydropower generation.QUESTION[S]) GO TO Q21 NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT AN ASPECT OF THISTHEME (OR THESE THEMES). (FROM Q17) 18. What did you think about Enjoyed itthe aboriginal audio … Didn’t enjoy it(CIRCLE – PROMPT IF Didn’t stop to listenREQUIRED) Weren’t able to listen

Unsure 19. What did you think about Enjoyed itthe convict audio … Didn’t enjoy it(CIRCLE – PROMPT IF Didn’t stop to listenREQUIRED) Weren’t able to listen

Unsure

134

20. What did you think about Enjoyed itthe television documentary in Didn’t enjoy itthe living room? Didn’t stop to see it(CIRCLE – PROMPT IF REQUIRED) Wasn’t able to see it

Unsure 21. What did you think about Enjoyed itoperating the hydro generator? Didn’t enjoy it(CIRCLE – PROMPT IF REQUIRED) Didn’t operate the generator

Didn’t operate generator, but still enjoyed itUnsure

22. Would you like to make any No commentsother comments on the display? Other (specify)(CIRCLE OR RECORD) 23. Were you happy paying to Yessee the display? No, too expensive(CIRCLE) No, entry should have

been freeUnsure

ASK ALL RESPONDENTS24. I would now like to ask you some questions about the buildingand services. I’d like you to give me a score out of 10 where 1 is verypoor and 10 is excellent about the services. (CIRCLE OR MARK IF UNABLE TO SAY – ROTATE ORDER MENTIONED)

Can’t Very Excellentsay poor

The friendliness of the staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The provision of local 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 information The effectiveness of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 booking service The building’s design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The toilets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

135

25. Overall, how would you rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 this centre in a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is very poor to 10 exceptional)?(CIRCLE) 26. Is there anything at this centre that could be improved?(PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM AND PROBE IF REQUIRED: CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT IMPROVE THIS CENTRE) 27. Have you visited any other No other centres visitedvisitor centres in Tasmania? Cradle Mountain(CIRCLE – MORE THAN ONE Lake St ClairRESPONSE POSSIBLE) Port Arthur

Mount FieldGeeveston Forest CentreOther (Specify)

28. Does any other visitor centre A centre/attraction that stands or tourist attraction that you out ishave been to anywhere in the world stand out in your mind? (RECORD OR CIRCLE) GO TO Q29

No other centre/attraction visited. GO TO Q31

29. What is it about this centre or attraction that makes it stand out?(PLEASE RECORD) 30. Could you briefly say how the Strahan centre compares with the centre or attraction you have just described?(PLEASE RECORD) 31. Could you briefly tell me what you generally look for in a visitor centre?(PLEASE RECORD)

136

32. How important are visitor Very importantcentres to your holiday Somewhat importantexperience? Neither important nor (CIRCLE AND PROMPT – unimportantWOULD YOU SAY THEY ARE …) Not very important

Very unimportantUnsure

33. Did you purchase any items Yes. GO TO Q34at the centre? No. GO TO Q35(CIRCLE AND RECORD) 34. What did you purchase?(PLEASE RECORD) 35. Did you see the play “The Yes. GO TO Q36Ship that Never Was”? No. GO TO Q37(CIRCLE) 36. How would you rate the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10play on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is very poor and 10 exceptional).(CIRCLE) 37. For you, what was the best thing about the Visitor Centre?(PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM) I WOULD NOW LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME GENERALINFORMATION ABOUT YOUR TRIP.38. On this trip have you Place May visitvisited or do you intend to Gordon River/Sarah Island 1.visit the following places? Cradle Mountain 2.(CIRCLE IF THEY HAVE VISITED Lake St Clair 3.OR MARK IF THEY INTEND Mount Field 4.TO VISIT) The Huon Area 5.

World Heritage Area 6.(PROMPT – MORE THAN Freycinet Peninsula 7.ONE RESPONSE POSSIBLE) Port Arthur 8.39. How many days all (days). GO TO Q40together on this trip will I live in Strahan. GO TO Q46you spend in Strahan? (DAYS)

137

40. What is your main reason Holidayfor visiting Strahan? Visiting friends and relatives(CIRCLE OR RECORD – BusinessPROMPT IF REQUIRED) Other (specify)41. How many days all together (days). GO TO Q42on this trip will you spend in I live in Tasmania. GO TO Q44Tasmania?(DAYS) 42. What is your main reason Holidayfor visiting Tasmania? Visiting friends and relatives(CIRCLE OR RECORD – BusinessPROMPT IF REQUIRED) Other (specify)43. Have you been to Tasmania Yesbefore? No(CIRCLE) 44. What is your mode of Private Cartransport? Rental Car(CIRCLE AND PROMPT Coach TourIF REQUIRED) Hitch Hiked

Other (specify)FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU THREE QUESTIONSABOUT YOURSELF. 45. What is your post code in Australia or country of origin(PLEASE RECORD) 46. Please could I ask your age?(YEARS) 47. What is the highest level of High School (up to year 10)education that you have Matriculation (up to year 12)completed? Technical qualification (Trade (CIRCLE) or TAFE certificate)

Tertiary (university Bachelor,Post Graduate or Diplomastudy)

138

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. Just toremind you that my name is Liza (GIVE SURNAME) from theresearch firm EMRS. If you have any questions about the surveythe University of Tasmania can be phoned on 6225 3410.

I certify that this interview has been fully and accurately recordedaccording to the ESOMAR Code of Professional Behaviour.

INTERVIEWER DATE

TIME COMPLETED TIME TAKEN

139

STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE VISITOR OBSERVATIONSJANUARY 2001CODE LOCATION/EXHIBIT NO’S CHILD W L R T S H O A WA P

1 Standing at Front

2 Auditorium

3 Seating Area 1

4 Seating Area 2 – checkers

5 Block & Tackle

6 Standing at Rear

7 Seating Area 3

8 Information Area

9 Information Desk

10 Souvenirs

11 Brochures

12 Computer

13 Information Area Seating

14 Rainforest Walk

15 Aboriginal Exhibit 1

16 Aboriginal Exhibit 2

17 Convict Exhibit

18 Piners’ Walk

19 Piners’ Hut

20 Huon Pine Walk

21 Art/Photographs

22 Conservation

23 Suburban Bungalow

24 Visitor Book

APPENDIX B: STRAHAN VISITOR CENTRE OBSERVATIONSCHECKLIST

No. Date: Start Time:

140

CODE LOCATION/EXHIBIT NO’S CHILD W L R T S H O A WA P

25 Video

26 Lounge Seating

27 Mining & Economy

28 Railway

29 Forestry

30 Hydro Dam & Race

31 Why World Heritage?

32 Display Seating

33 Reference Material

34 Void Area

35 Exit Panel

141

APPENDIX C: CROSS TABULATION VISITOR SURVEY RESULTS

Table 1 Mode of transport cross-tabulated with groupcharacteristics.

TRAVEL PARTY

SINGLE COUPLE ADULT ADULT GROUP TOTALGROUP WITH

CHILDREN

Mode of Private car 30 44 14 33 121Transport 43.5% 42.7% 56.0% 62.3% 48.4%

Rental car 25 55 9 19 10836.2% 53.4% 36.0% 35.8% 43.2%

Coach tour 12 3 1 1 1717.4% 2.9% 4.0% 1.9% 6.8%

Cycles 1 1 21.4% 1.0% 0.8%

Motorcycles 1 1 21.4% 4.0% 0.8%

Total 69 103 25 53 250100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.00%

χ2 29.332, 12df, p=0.004

Table 2 Mode of transport cross-tabulated with origin.

TRAVELLERS ORIGIN

INTRASTATE INTERSTATE INTERNATIONAL TOTAL

Mode of Private car 19 95 7 121Transport 95.0% 49.7% 17.9% 48.4%

Rental car 1 85 22 1085.0% 44.5% 56.4% 43.2%

Coach tour 8 9 174.2% 23.1% 6.8%

Cycles 1 1 20.5% 2.6% 0.8%

Motorcycles 2 21.0% 0.8%

Total 20 191 39 250100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 45.870, 8df, p=0.000

142

Table 3 Visitors paying to see the interpretive display byorigin.

VISITORS SEEING THE INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY

YES NO TOTAL

Travellers origin Intrastate 7 15 2214.0% 7.4% 8.7%

Interstate 38 153 19176.0% 75.7% 75.8%

International 5 34 3910.0% 16.8% 15.5%

Total 50 202 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 3.193, 2df, p=0.203

Table 4 Visitors paying to see the interpretive display byvisitor group.


YES NO TOTAL

Travel party Single 16 55 7132.0% 27.2% 28.2%

Couple 15 88 10330.0% 43.6% 40.9%

Adult group 5 20 2510.0% 9.9% 9.9%

Adult group with 14 39 53children 28.0% 19.3% 21.0%

Total 50 202 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 3.569, 3df, p=0.312

143

Table 5 Visitors paying to see the interpretive display by sex.


YES NO TOTAL

Sex Female 24 99 12348.0% 49.0% 48.8%

Male 26 103 129

52.0% 51.0% 51.2%

Total 50 202 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 0.16, 1df, p=0.898

Table 6 Visitors paying to see the interpretive display by age.

Visitors seeing the interpretive display


YES NO TOTAL

Age <20 10 105.0% 4.0%

20-29 12 39 5124.0% 19.3% 20.2%

30-39 9 54 6318.0% 26.7% 25.0%

40-49 13 50 6326.0% 24.8% 25.0%

50-59 11 35 4622.0% 17.3% 18.3%

>60 5 13 1810.0% 6.4% 7.1%

Declined 1 10.5% 0.4%

Total 50 202 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 5.599, 6df, p=0.470

144

Table 7 Duration of stay at the Strahan Visitor Centre.


YES NO TOTAL

Time <5 minutes 64 6431.7% 25.4%

5-15 minutes 13 96 10926.0% 47.5% 43.3%

15-30 minutes 16 26 4232.0% 12.9% 16.7%

30-60 minutes 13 8 2126.0% 4.0% 8.3%

>60 minutes 8 8 1616.0% 4.0% 6.3%

Total 50 202 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 61.440, 4df, p=0.000

Table 8 Overall visitor satisfaction according to sex.

SEX

FEMALE MALE TOTAL

Overall satisfaction Unsatisfied 5 2 74.1% 1.6% 2.8%

Neither satisfied 7 22 29nor unsatisfied 5.7% 17.1% 11.5% Satisfied 54 60 114

43.9% 46.5% 45.2% Very satisfied 57 45 102

46.3% 34.9% 40.5%

Total 123 129 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 10.635, 3df, p=0.014

145

Table 9 Overall visitor satisfaction according to time spent atthe centre.

TIME

<5 MIN 5-15 MIN 15-30 MIN 30-60 MIN >60 MIN TOTAL

Overall Unsatisfied 1 3 3 7satisfaction 1.6% 2.8% 7.1% 2.8%

Neither 9 16 2 1 1 29satisfied nor 14.1% 14.7% 4.8% 4.8% 6.3% 11.5%unsatisfied Satisfied 33 48 19 8 6 114

51.6% 44.0% 45.2% 38.1% 37.5% 45.2%Very satisfied 21 42 18 12 9 102

32.8% 38.5% 42.9% 57.1% 56.3% 40.5%

Total 64 109 42 21 16 252100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 5.562, 3df, p=0.135

Table 10 Visitor response on paying to see the interpretivedisplay.

HAPPY PAYING TO SEE THE INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY

YES NO UNSURE TOTAL

The display: Told a good story 42 1 1 4491.3% 50.0% 50.0% 88.0%

Did not tell a good 2 1 3story 4.3% 50.0% 6.0% Unsure 2 1 3

4.3% 50.0% 6.0%

Total 46 2 2 50100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

χ2 14.279, 4df, p=0.006

146

Liza D. FallonLiza is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Tasmaniafocusing on environmental studies, sustainable tourism andsustainable communities. She completed her Bachelor of Scienceundergraduate degree in 1999 at the University of Tasmania with adouble major in Environmental Studies and Plant Science. Since thistime, she has been awarded a Plant Science honours scholarship withthe University of Tasmania and a CRC Sustainable Tourism honoursscholarship with Griffith University in partnership with the Universityof Tasmania. In 2001, Liza completed a postgraduate honours degreein Environmental Studies with the CRC Sustainable Tourism. Liza alsohas considerable industry experience. Over the past few years she hasworked as an Oceans Planning Officer with the National OceansOffice (Environment Australia) and a Scientific Officer with theDepartment of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE) inTasmania. In addition, Liza has completed four voyages to Antarcticawith the Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions (ANARE)as Biologist, Hydrologist and Laboratory Manager, as well asundertaking the responsibilities of Environment Officer at theAustralian Antarctic Division. Liza has recently established Galbraithand Fallon Consulting, a consultancy partnership with marketing andenvironmental expertise. Email: [email protected]

Lorne K. KriwokenLorne is a Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of the Centre forEnvironmental Studies, University of Tasmania. He lectures inwilderness and natural area management, environmental impactassessment and environmental technology. Lorne’s research interestsinclude sustainable tourism, especially Antarctica and World HeritageAreas; protected area planning and management; and ocean andcoastal zone management. Email: [email protected]

AUTHORS

147

The Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism was established under the AustralianGovernment’s Cooperative Research Centres Program to underpin the development of adynamic, internationally competitive, and sustainable tourism industry.

Our mission: Developing and managing intellectual property (IP) to deliver innovation tobusiness, community and government to enhance the environmental, economic and socialsustainability of tourism.

DEVELOPING OUR IP

Director of Research – Prof Leo Jago

1. Tourism, conservation andenvironmental managementresearch

Co-ordinator – Prof Ralf Buckley([email protected] )• Wildlife Tourism• Mountain Tourism• Nature Tourism• Adventure Tourism

2. Tourism engineering design and eco-technology research

Coordinator – Dr David Lockington([email protected]) • Coastal and marine infrastructure and

systems• Coastal tourism ecology• Waste management• Physical infrastructure, design and

construction

3. Tourism policy, events and business management research

Coordinator – Prof Leo Jago([email protected])• Consumers and marketing• Events and sports tourism• Tourism economics and policy• Strategic management• Regional tourism• Indigenous tourism

4. Tourism IT and Informatics researchCoordinator – Dr Pramod Sharma(p.sharma @uq.edu.au )• Electronic product & destination

marketing and selling• IT for travel and tourism online

development• Rural and regional tourism online

development• E-business innovation in sustainable

travel and tourism

5. Post graduate educationCoordinator – Dr John Fien([email protected])

6. Centre for Tourism and RiskManagement

Director – Prof Jeffrey Wilks([email protected] )

7. Centre for Regional Tourism Research

Director – Prof Peter Baverstock([email protected])MANAGING OUR IPGeneral Manager – Ian Pritchard([email protected])1. IP register2. Technology transfer 3. Commercialisation4. Destination management products5. Executive training6. Delivering international services7. Spin-off companies

• Sustainable Tourism HoldingsCEO – Peter O’Clery([email protected])

• Sustainable Tourism ServicesManaging Director – Stewart Moore ([email protected])

• Green Globe Asia PacificCEO – Graeme Worboys ([email protected] )

For more information contact: Communications Manager – Brad CoxCRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty LtdGriffith University, PMB 50 GOLD COAST MC, Qld 9726Ph: +61 7 5552 8116, Fax: +61 7 5552 8171Visit: www.crctourism.com.au or email:[email protected]

CAIRNSCairns NodeCoordinatorProf Philip PearcePh: 07 4781 [email protected]

DARWINNorthern Territory NodeCoordinatorMs Alicia BoylePh: 08 8946 [email protected]

BRISBANETourism Engineering,Design and Technology ResearchDr David LockingtonPh: 07 3365 [email protected]

IT & Informatics ResearchDr Pramod SharmaPh: 07 3365 [email protected]

Sustainable Tourism ServicesMr Stewart MooreManaging DirectorPh: 07 3211 [email protected]

Education Program CoordinatorDr John FienPh: 07 3875 [email protected]

GOLD COASTChief ExecutiveProf Terry De LacyPh: 07 5552 [email protected]

Conservation and EnvironmentalManagement ResearchProf Ralf BuckleyPh: 07 5552 [email protected]

LISMORECentre for Regional Tourism ResearchProf Peter BaverstockPh: 02 6620 [email protected]

SYDNEYNew South Wales Node CoordinatorMr Tony GriffinPh: 02 9514 [email protected]

International ProgramCo-ordinatorDr Johannes BauerPh: 02 6338 [email protected]

LAUNCESTONTasmania Node CoordinatorProf Trevor SofieldPh: 03 6324 [email protected]

MELBOURNEDirector of ResearchProf Leo JagoPh: 03 9688 [email protected]

CANBERRAIndustry Extension CoordinatorMr Peter O’CleryPh: 02 6230 [email protected]

Australian Capital TerritoryNode CoordinatorProf Trevor MulesPh: 02 6201 [email protected]

PERTHWestern Australia Node CoordinatorProf Jack CarlsenPh: 08 9266 [email protected]

ADELAIDESouth Australia NodeCoordinatorProf Graham BrownPh: 08 8302 [email protected]

key elements contributing to effective and … · 2014. 11. 18. · the development of this project...

Documents